1951-06-29

Mr. Speaker:: Yesterday a rather acrimonious debate took place in this house on a subject I do not think I need mention, since I am sure it is still fresh in the minds of many hon. members; and I am hopeful, of course, that it will not be revived today. During the course of the debate the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) used the word "cowardly" with respect to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), and the Prime Minister demanded that the word should be withdrawn. I ruled that the word was unparliamentary, and that the leader of the opposition must withdraw it.
In reply the leader of the opposition stated that the Prime Minister had charged him with lack of courage. I did not recall having heard the Prime Minister use the words, and accordingly did not order him to withdraw them. The leader of the opposition insisted that the words had been used, and the Prime Minister stated that if he had used the words he would withdraw them. Apparently the house has left it to me to determine whether the words complained of by the leader of the opposition were used by the Prime Minister.
I have read in Hansard the record of the proceedings in the house yesterday, and I cannot find that the words referred to by the leader of the opposition were used. Accordingly I rule that the Prime Minister did not use the words "lack of courage", and that a withdrawal is not necessary. I further rule that as the leader of the opposition did use the word "cowardly" it is necessary that he withdraw it. In closing his remarks the leader of the opposition said:
If the Prime Minister used words different from those which I heard, and which I think I heard correctly, then obviously my remarks were related to words which were not said. Hansard will speak for itself.
I draw the attention of hon. members to these words:
If they were not said, then I withdraw what I said in relation to them.
Accordingly I accept the withdrawal of the leader of the opposition.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of reviving the discussion. I would simply point out that if you will check the record carefully you will see that what I referred to was the implication of the words. I also have checked the Hansard record; and I need not remind you that an implication has the same result as a direct statement.
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): I do not wish to revive the debate, either, but I do wish to point out the impression that seems to have been left with objective newspapermen in reporting it. The inference or impression left with reputable newspapermen who were attempting, I think, to give an objective report, is to be found in the report in the Montreal Gazette of today, the last part of which is as follows:
Mr. St. Laurent jumped to his feet.
"Mr. Speaker," he said, "may I through you ask ' the leader of the opposition if we are to take this merely more or less as a successful attempt to retire behind a smoke screen, or if he does in a manly way take the responsibility of asserting any charge whatsoever on the floor of this house."
Mr. Drew snapped:
"Mr. Speaker, I do net take very kindly to the inference by the Prime Minister that I am not acting with proper courage, but I do not think that my remarks indicate that I am as cowardly as the Prime Minister, acting in the way he has in regard to a minister with the power this minister has."
At that point, Mr. St. Laurent demanded the immediate withdrawal of the word "cowardly." Speaker Ross Macdonald agreed the word was unparliamentary and ordered Mr. Drew to withdraw.
The Progressive Conservative leader, amid a swelling hubbub, refused to relent unless Mr. St. Laurent withdraw what he understood to be the words "lack of courage."
Mr. St. Laurent said he had not used that phrase; he thought he had used the words "manly course." If the official record proved him wrong, he would withdraw.
Mr. Drew said he, too, would let the record speak for itself, and the matter rested there.
If that is the impression that has been left, the matter cannot rest there. I do not mind what epithets the leader of the opposition may choose to apply to me, or how much vilification he may attempt to heap upon me. But when unparliamentary language is used in this house and the Speaker of the house orders the member using it to withdraw it, it does not matter who he is; whether he is Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition, or anyone else, he must comply with the order of the Speaker, and the matter cannot rest until he has done

House of Commons
so or has suffered the consequences that are whether or not he had withdrawn the word usual in the case of a member defying the "cowardly". It is that doubt that I ask orders of the Speaker.	him to resolve.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, as you have
indicated, you have accepted my withdrawal. But since the Prime Minister has chosen to reopen this matter, then the matter will not stand there.


An hon. Member:: He did not reopen it.


George Alexander Drew: The Prime Minister, in relation to remarks that have been made, has used the word "vilification". He follows up with that after the highly improper use of the word "smear", which is an unparliamentary expression and should be withdrawn. I would simply point out that this is just a blind by which the Prime Minister is trying to escape from his responsibility to clean up a situation that should have been cleaned up long ago.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I thought yesterday
that the leader of the opposition had withdrawn the words-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. As I say, I thought
yesterday that the leader of the opposition had withdrawn the word if it was found not to appear in Hansard. However, from what he has said this morning, I am not sure that he has withdrawn the word.


Mr. Sinclair:: Quite right.


Mr. Speaker:: It is necessary that the word should be withdrawn unreservedly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: If I allow the word to stand, or if there is any uncertainty as to whether or not it stands, where will the Speaker of this house be? Hon. members of this house have given the greatest co-operation to the Speaker during the years that I have been in the house. The leader of the opposition especially has done so during my term of office. In order that there may be no mistake about it, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the word "cowardly".


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, Hansard will
show again perfectly clearly that I rose and said that you had accepted my withdrawal, but that the Prime Minister had reopened this discussion by adding to what he had already said, and had used the word "vilification".


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: You have accepted-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. When I completed
my remarks, the leader of the opposition rose and he created great doubt in my mind


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, there can be no doubt about it. The point is that you would have heard it quite clearly if there had not been the disgraceful noise that is being made by the members who are supporting the Prime Minister in his refusal to deal with this subject.


An hon. Member:: Come out from under the car.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think I should know definitely whether or not the leader of the opposition withdraws the word "cowardly".


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, l said so yesterday and I say so coday, and you have that withdrawal. But having said that, I then ask you to consider the appropriateness of the word "smear" which is used by a man in defending an indefensible position.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The word "smear" was used in the debate a few days ago. At that time a withdrawal was not asked for. I do not think that at this late date I should reopen that matter.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the word "smear" was used again yesterday, and I did refer to it. Whether you do so now or whether you do so later, I ask you to rule on the use of the words "smear" and "vilification".


Mr. Speaker:: When unparliamentary words are used, objection should be taken to them at the time they are used. If the leader of the opposition drew my attention to those words when they were used, I do not recall the incident. I do not recall that the word "vilification" was used.


An hon. Member:: This morning.


Mr. Speaker:: I recall that the word "smear" was used; and at the time it was used the leader of the opposition himself did not ask that it be withdrawn. I do not think it would serve any useful purpose to reopen the subject at this time.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the word "vilification" was used this morning.


Mr. St. Laurent:: Yes.


George Alexander Drew: The word "smear" was used yesterday, and I did raise the question in regard to it at that time.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to prolong this discussion. If the word "vilification" is unparliamentary, and if the word "smear" is unparliamentary, I withdraw them. But I do say that there has been here an unfortunate tendency to try to besmirch

the reputation of men occupying public office. I think that is unfortunate, because it is already difficult enough to get the right kind of men to assume the burdens of public office when, in addition to their having to bear such burdens, there is this tendency which, in another jurisdiction, has had extremely unfortunate results because of its effect upon the reputation of those who are in public office.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I accept the withdrawal of the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: -in the spirit in which that withdrawal was offered. I would also point out that there is no principle established under our parliamentary system that, because it may be embarrassing for anyone to bear the consequences of his conduct-if members choose to bring their personal affairs into public office-it should prevent the discussion of those things which would reflect upon public office.


Mr. Howe:: Mr. Speaker, that last remark applies to myself. I realize that I am in good company here. The leader of the opposition has applied the same tactics to men with a greater claim than myself to having rendered service to this country, such as Norman Rogers, Layton Ralston, Sir Lyman Duff, and a long list of others. After all this-


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


George Alexander Drew: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, may I say that statement in regard to Layton Ralston is absolutely untrue.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I seem to remember the Hong Kong investigation. I do not think I need to go further than that. The people in this house have memories. I could give the names of ten or twelve others if it would do any good. But I want to say that if a man can rise to high office in the Conservative party on that kind of record, the party must be proud of him.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, or the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe), has introduced exactly the type of smear tactics that he has been criticizing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has now used the word "smear", to which he objected as being unparliamentary.
80709-310i	f
Ming Sung Industrial Company


George Alexander Drew: In view of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that word. But since the minister has seen fit to adopt tactics that introduced discussion which is in no way related to this present discussion, may I say that I would simply refer back to his remarks yesterday when, with all the claim that he should be exempt from any reference to his family, he used a most despicable expression which was intended to relate to my own.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of standing committee on public accounts.-Mr. Picard.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, may I answer the question .put to me yesterday by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) about the dates of the exemption from certain regulations of the ships of the Ming Sung company. The return to the order shows that the exemption in Canada was made on May 16, and was notified to the trade commissioner on May 16, 1950. The correspondence dealing with that is in the return. I added verbally that doubts had been raised subsequently as to the sufficiency of that exemption, in view of the terms of the shipping regulations of 1899 of the government of Hong Kong, and that, at the request of the Canadian government, the government of the United Kingdom had had exemption under those regulations issued subsequently.
The doubt was first expressed in a confidential letter from a law officer of the government of Hong Kong to our trade commissioner on October 13, 1950. The regulations of Hong Kong were amended either on January 4 or January 5, 1951, and then on January 5, 1951, that exemption from those orders was issued by the Hong Kong administration.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: During the period from May 13, 1950, to January 4, 1951, were these ships operating under the exemption made by the cabinet directive of May, 1950?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I will not say from what date, but from shortly after May 16 some of them were operating, and there was no exemption other than the Canadian exemption until January 5, 1951.


Mr. Pearkes:: Arising out of the Prime Minister's statement about the exemption to

Inquiries of the Ministry the Ming Sung company, may I ask him if any exemptions have been granted by the Canadian government other than those tabled the other day and dated May 1950?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No exemptions of any *other nature for these ships. I am not sure whether they have been renewed in the meantime or not, or whether the original .exemptions are in force at the present time. There has been no change in the situation, and it may be that to avoid any change there has been some renewal of exemptions which might have expired. I shall endeavour to check and to find out if they have been renewed. I know there is an application pending at the present time for renewal by the Hong Kong government, because its exemption was originally for a period of six months from January 5, 1951.


George Randolph Pearkes: No enlargement of the scope of those exemptions has been made?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No; the exemptions are those covered by the order in council of May 5, 1950, and those of May 16, 1950, described by the Minister of Transport.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: May I ask the
Minister of Justice what the situation is regarding the return that I asked for some time ago? I mentioned it yesterday, and the Minister of Public Works said that probably it would be forthcoming.


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: During the day I will try to have that return. I know I initialed the copy yesterday, and I shall do my utmost to have it tabled today.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It has been a long time coming.


Alphonse Fournier: May I correct the statement I made a moment ago in answer to the hon. member for Royal? I did sign a letter to the premier of New Brunswick asking his consent to table documents in this matter.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: May I ask when the minister signed the letter, and whether he has heard anything from the premier of the province?


Alphonse Fournier: I sign a good many letters, and I cannot recall whether it was yesterday afternoon or this morning that I signed that special letter.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It was on June 6 that this order for return was made. It seems to me that the request to the premier of New Brunswick yesterday has been very much delayed.
IMr. Pearkes.]


Alphonse Fournier: I will admit delay, but I have been quite busy during the last few days, as the hon. member knows-and I know, too, that he was busy outside the house for some time.



INQUIRY AS TO NEGOTIATIONS FOR CEASE-FIRE AND ARMISTICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that we hope this may be the last day of the session, I am wondering whether the Prime Minister feels that it would be in the public interest to bring the house up to date with respect to the proposed negotiations in connection with peace in Korea and the part that Canada is playing in it. I make that suggestion because of the keen interest all hon. members have in this very important matter. I am quite sure that if the Prime Minister has a statement he feels he could make at the moment, the house would be pleased to hear it.
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): I am sorry; I have no information that has not already been published in the Canadian and United Stales press. The hon. member and the people of Canada can be assured that Canada will do everything within its power to bring about a cease-fire, for which the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) has been working incessantly for many months.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the Prime Minister one other question relating to the same subject? Who is representing Canada in the negotiations which are in progress at the present time among the other United Nations who are interested in the Korean campaign?


Mr. St. Laureni:: It is difficult to give a
categorical answer, because there are talks going on in many different places. The Secretary of State for External Affairs himself has been in close touch with the foreign secretary in London, our ambassador in in close touch with the state department at Washington. The Secretary of State for External Affairs, either today or tomorrow, will be proceeding to Oslo, and intends to visit other foreign ministers in western Europe. He had an interview with Mr. Trygve Lie at one of the airports; and the matter is of course being discussed at the headquarters of the United Nations by our acting permanent delegate there at the present time Mr. John Holmes. Herbert Norman also arrived there yesterday, or is arriving there today
The matter is one which is of such interest to all those who have participated in the

United Nations actions in Korea that it is being discussed where any of them can make contacts.


Gordon Graydon: Is there any suggestion that there will be a special meeting of the general assembly of the United Nations to deal with this matter?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I have not heard of one being proposed, but I know that the secretary general and the president of the general assembly are quite as hopefully concerned as any of the rest of us can be about the outcome.



IRRIGATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he has any announcement to make with regard to the experts who will be chosen by the government, or provided by the government, to advise on the South Saskatchewan river scheme.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No; I am not in a position to make an announcement. There is active correspondence now with gentlemen whom the government would consider eminently qualified to make a report on that matter. It was felt that no names should be mentioned until acceptance had been obtained, because, if it became impossible for any of these gentlemen to act, we would not like anyone else t,o feel that he was just second choice and that he was regarded as not as desirable as those with whom we are in correspondence at the present time.


Major James William Coldwell: But the matter is being actively pursued?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes, it is being actively pursued. We were informed that it was best for us not to press too urgently for an answer, because we know that those whom we have approached are interested; and if they can arrange their commitments in a way such as to be available, they have told us that they would be glad to do it. But they were not in a position to make definite commitments in this respect without rearranging some others.



DROWNING ACCIDENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask
Inquiries of the Ministry a question of the Minister of Public Works, of which I have given oral notice. I realize that to some extent my question will be only by way of notice, but I wished to bring the minister's attention to the matter before the session closes.
As all hon. members are aware, particularly those living in or near Ottawa, a short time ago, at the place known as Devil's Hole, at Hog's Back on the Rideau river, a fine young lad of twenty, Gerald Fink, a superb athlete, lost his life. In view of the fact that there have been other tragedies at that point, I took the matter up and had inquiries made through the municipal council, the federal district commission and the Rideau canal offices of the Department of Transport, as well as at the office of the chief engineer of the Department of Public Works. It seemed impossible to get any definite assurance as to which body has authority, or as to which of those official organizations had control over that particular spot.
After the recent tragedy, the father of the young man, Dr. Fink, seemed mostly concerned about the possibility of the same thing happening to anyone else. With this in our minds I think every effort should be made to bring together the various authorities with a view to seeing whether there is some way of preventing the use of waters in which, as has been demonstrated, it is extremely dangerous to dive or swim.
I bring this matter to the attention of the Minister of Public Works, because his department has control over all navigable waters, and this is part of a navigable stream; therefore there should be some measure of jurisdiction under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. I hope he will take appropriate steps to bring the various authorities together with a view to seeing whether something can be done to prevent swimming at that particular place in the river.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the leader of the opposition for calling me concerning this matter. I welcome his inquiry, and I shall certainly find out who has control over this part of Devil's Hole at Hog's Back. If it is the responsibility of the Department of Public Works, you may be sure that we will attend to it immediately.
Since it is likely that the house will adjourn this evening until the fall, I shall write the hon. member instead of giving an answer in the house.
<4892

Suppiy-National Revenue FREIGHT RATES



QUESTION AS TO VALIDITY OF CANCELLATION OF CERTAIN TARIFFS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arthur Laing (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to ask the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transport dealing with Canadian freight association tariff 145, notice of cancellation of which has gone forward. Would he check as to the validity of the notice of the railways pending a ruling of the board of transport commissioners?


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke to me shortly before I came into the chamber. I will see that an inquiry is made, and will give an answer if possible.



&quot;MUSICOLOGIST&quot;


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the parliamentary assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. What is the meaning of the word "musicologist" which appears in a press release of the Department of External Affairs under today's date? The word is not to be found in either of the two volumes of the Oxford dictionary.


Mr. Jean Lesage (Parliameniary Assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I did not see the press release, but I shall have a look at it and later in the day, when the estimates of this department are before the committee, I shall give an answer to the hon. member.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


[Stage Direction]
Customs and excise divisions-
309. General administration, $1,936,980.
Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Chairman, the estimates for the customs and excise divisions of the national revenue department are made up of five votes totalling $23,790,574. Of this total amount, salaries for the staff comprise 82-75 per cent. In addition to the main estimates there is a supplementary item of $138,700, vote No. 735.
This division is responsible for the collection of customs and excise duties and taxes.
(Mr. Fournier (Hull).]
These revenues, and the work entailed in collecting them, rose in 1950-51 to $1,256,000,000, exceeding 1949-50 by $203,000,000. The budget speech delivered by my colleague the Minister of Finance forecast customs and excise revenues for 1951-52 of $1,487,000,000, which is an increase of $231,000,000 over last year. The revenues for April and May are running well ahead of last year.
There are many different aspects and functions in the work of the customs and excise divisions. However, perhaps the most significant single yardstick for measuring the volume of work in these divisions is the number of import entries. In 1950-51 this figure rose more than eight per cent over the previous year, and the preliminary reports for the first two months in this fiscal year show an increase in work of more than seventeen per cent over the corresponding months last year.
With regard to tourist traffic, figures for the first five months in 1951 indicate an increase of more than six per cent over last year in the number of automobiles entering Canada, and there is an increase of more than ten per cent in the number of people entering Canada other than by automobile.
All these things mean a greater volume of business, especially at border points. However, I would draw the attention of the house to the fact that despite the increasing work load I have mentioned, the customs-excise estimates for 1951-52, taking all five votes together, provide for practically no increase in staff over the previous year.
Obviously if we are to handle more work with the same staff it is necessary to increase efficiency of operations. One measure has been the merging of primary customs and immigration examination of travellers at frontier points. This program has been in progress for several months, and is being extended as rapidly as possible. We hope that the savings in manpower in my department and the citizenship and immigration department will be significant.
Another efficiency measure has been the improvement of internal procedures in our field offices and at headquarters. Every effort is being made to streamline our procedures and to handle the increased volume of work without adding to the staff.
Finally, I should point out that the maintaining of small customs-excise offices, employing only one or two men, is an expensive business, both in money and in manpower.
The first item to be voted is No. 309, general administration, amounting to $1,936,980. This vote represents the cost of maintaining the headquarters administration of the Customs

Act, the Customs Tariff, the Excise Tax Act, and the Excise Act, together with regulations established under these statutes. In addition to the administering of these statutes, the customs-excise division administers, in part, on behalf of other departments, approximately forty other acts, such as the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, the Canada Shipping Act, the Copyright Act, the Foreign Exchange Control Act, etc., and regulations relating thereto.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I should
like to raise a general question with regard to administration which is referred to in the public press this morning in connection with a recent judgment of the income tax appeal board.


James Joseph McCann: We are dealing now with
the customs and excise division, which will be followed by the taxation division. Perhaps the hon. member would defer his remarks until we reach the taxation division.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It occurred
to me that this was just a general question dealing with the attitude of the officials. I am not entering into any general criticism, and if the minister wishes to have it dealt with later on, that will be all right. Under what item would the minister suggest that I bring up this matter?


James Joseph McCann: Item 314 deals with general
administration of the taxation division.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Perhaps
the best item would be 317, which refers to the income tax appeal board.


Mr. Fleming:: Last year when we were
dealing with a similar item in the minister's estimates I raised a question with regard to the holding of sales in Toronto of goods seized for non-payment of customs and excise duties, and I should like to raise it again today. What I said last year is to be found at page 4300 of Hansard of June 28, 1950, where I am reported as follows:
There is a matter which I should like to bring to the attention of the minister, if indeed it has not already been brought to his attention. It has to do with the customs service for the city of Toronto, and the methods now followed of selling goods that have been placed under seizure. According to my information the methods now being followed are not efficient, and are not yielding the full value that could be realized on the sale of goods. There was a time when goods were sold at auction by true auctioneers who gave adequate publicity to the sale. According to my present information that method was abandoned some time ago as a result of some patronage difficulties that the government encountered, and now the sales are simply carried through by members of the staff of the department who are not qualified as auctioneers.
Here is a situation where more money could be yielded to the public treasury if efficient methods were followed in realizing the utmost possible on
Supply-National Revenue goods under seizure. I would ask the minister to look into this matter, and give it his personal attention because, according to the information I have, much more could be realized on the sales if efficient auctioneering methods were followed.
The minister replied as follows:
I had not any knowledge that the method of disposal of seized goods had been changed. Notice of the auction is given to the public press and the goods are sold by auction. It may well be that there is a difference in the classes of auctioneers. Some auctioneers may be able to get a better price for goods than others, but the best possible price is realized when goods under seizure are disposed of. However I shall be glad to look into the suggestions of the hon. member for Eglinton, and if the method is not up to date we shall bring it up to date.
According to my information, the steps that have been taken to bring the methods up to date and to make them efficient have been entirely inadequate. According to the information which I have, sales which are held under the auspices of the department have been carried on with the minimum of advertising in the press and are not conducted by trained auctioneers. Under such circumstances it is inevitable that much less is realized from the sale of seized goods than might be realized if efficient methods were followed.
Formerly these sales were conducted by auctioneers who did considerable advertising and endeavoured to bid up prices in an effort to realize the utmost possible from the sale of goods. I am told that the government ran into some patronage problems in connection with the auctioneers, and there seemed to be some rivalry for the governmental largesse, so the government decided to dispense with the services of auctioneers. Whatever the government's difficulties may be in distributing its largesse, the fact of the matter is if they are simply going to use the services of people in the department who have no particular training in auctioneering, less is going to be realized on the sale of these goods than could be realized by the use of the services of someone trained in auctioneering goods.
I was given one example of a new article that was sold at a sale in Toronto about a month ago. I am told it was worth approximately $1,800, and on the sale something like $500 was realized. I was told by a person who attended the sale, having seen a little squib of an advertisement in the paper beforehand, or I think the notice at the dominion building in Toronto, that the article was valuable, and that if an attempt had been made to advertise the sale and to use the services of an efficient auctioneer to have the article bid up, a substantially larger sum could have been realized.
Just a few days after that sale I am told that another sale was held in Toronto, the department on that occasion using the services of an auctioneer. If they saw fit in the

Supply-National Revenue case of the latter sale to retain the services of an auctioneer, I am more surprised that they did not on the earlier occasion, because the two occasions were separated by a matter of only a few days, I think less than two weeks; and a substantial loss resulted on the first occasion from inadequate prices realized because of not following efficient methods of sale. I hope that the use of an auctioneer on the occasion of the latter sale marks a departure in policy on the part of the government, and that we may be assured that from this time on steps will be taken to retain the services of efficient auctioneers and to give adequate publicity to the sales so that the best possible prices may be realized on the sale of seized goods.


James Joseph McCann: I remember distinctly that the hon. member brought this matter up a year ago, and it was drawn to the attention of the officials of the department. Let me tell him immediately that there is no question of largesse or patronage in connection with it at all. We have felt that when we had an official within the department who could handle this matter it was unnecessary to go to the expense of having a licensed auctioneer. The sales have been advertised, and I think on balance we receive fairly good prices for the national revenue for the articles which are sold. After all, it is not a matter of receiving large prices for the articles that are sold. Our main interest is to recover the revenues that are coming to the department and to the crown by virtue of the duties.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the objective of the department is so limited, namely, simply to recover the amount of the duties that are owing on the goods, then certainly the duty of the department is to make these sales very widely known so that more than the few who happen to have the information about the sales being held may attend and take advantage of the choice bargains that are being offered.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: In the first place, it seems to me that what the hon. member for Eglinton has said is true. Second,
I infer from what the minister has said that, notwithstanding what the hon. member for Eglinton said a year ago, there has been no disposition to change the procedure in any way but rather merely to justify what is being done. Finally, I find it difficult to understand that the objective should be merely to recover the amount owing. Either you are trying to sell it for what it will bring, or you are not. I certainly feel if all you are trying to do is to recover what may be against the article, it is such an unbusinesslike transaction that I rather think it lends itself to irregularities. I am shocked at that suggestion.
fMr. Fleming.]


James Joseph McCann: It is not unbusinesslike at all. It depends on the volume of goods in the king's warehouse at the time as to whether or not we will employ a licensed auctioneer or whether we will save money for the crown by having one of our own officials conduct the auction. All sales are sufficiently advertised. I think the hon. gentleman will appreciate on balance that the type of goods that are left unclaimed are not as a rule very valuable. We have all kinds of umbrellas, small parcels of clothes, and so on. If the hon. member attended one of the auctions he probably would not invest a nickel in anything they had there unless he was a real gambler.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I simply want to express my opinion that the sales are not sufficiently advertised. If the minister is saying that a little squib about an inch deep lost in the inside pages of a newspaper is a sufficient advertisement, then his idea of advertising and mine are radically .different. As to the saving of the fees of auctioneers, on this one article alone to which I have referred the sale realized about $1,300 less than the article was worth, and I think the committee will appreciate that there is enough in that one item alone to have provided the fees of a good many auctioneers on a number of occasions.


James Joseph McCann: Would the hon. member give me the details of the specific case in which he thinks we did not get enough money? Our auctioneers and our own officials who carry on auctions have appraisal figures of what they think these articles are worth. We are not giving anything away. When the bidding reaches the point where we feel that sufficient has been offered, that bid is usually accepted; otherwise the bidding is kept open. I have never conducted an auction, although I have been at a few of them; but I think the interests of the crown are well protected by the method we employ. However, we will look into the matter further. I am told by my officials, as I was told after the matter came up last year, that the sales are advertised in the customs building and in the local newspaper.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I should be glad to give the minister the particulars of this particular article that was sold. When he says that notice is given in the customs building, I should like to point out that is where a very small number of people learn of these sales. The advertising in the newspapers is quite inadequate, and the people who are getting notice of these sales at the customs buildings are the very limited number of people who apparently are making these purchases at very low prices.


James Joseph McCann: I might explain that there are two methods used. One has to do with articles that are uncalled for, and the other has to do with seized articles, with valuable articles such as jewelry, diamond rings, diamonds, and so on, that are seized. We have an appraisal put on those by competent jewelry firms, and their value is watched when they are put up for tender, not for auction.


Mr. Low:: I should like to pass on a suggestion which I think might help the minister to obtain the results he outlined to us, more efficiency and better work from the people in his department. I have occasion to cross and recross the United States boundary at different times in the year, and almost every year. I have noticed that when I come to a port of entry to return to Canada, often the officials are very busy. At times there may be two or three dozen people waiting to make a declaration of articles that they have acquired in the United States. As a rule when busses or cars discharge their passengers at the customs house, they will go to the desk and the officials will quickly distribute the appropriate form; I think it is E-24. The travellers are required to list the articles they have brought across. When they are finished and have signed their declarations, the government official has to pick up the forms, and in many instances I have noticed that he has to go back and classify the articles that have been declared. That takes a good deal of his time and holds up the whole crowd.
I have wondered if a suggestion of this kind could not be carried out; it would not cost very much, and I feel that it would help both the customs officials and the travelling public. You might print right on the face of the form the various headings under which the customs officer reports back to headquarters. For instance, the first heading I have noticed is automobile accessories; then automobile tires and tubes; then shoes, ladies', gentlemen's and children's; then clothing, ladies', gentlemen's and children's. It seems to me it would be quite simple to have these classifications printed on the forms. Then when the officials handed them out to the travelling public they would see at once that the articles were supposed to be declared in that order and would do so, and in that way save a good deal of time. For what the suggestion is worth I am bringing it to the attention of the minister.


James Joseph McCann: I thank the hon. member for his suggestion. The reason they are assorted in this way is that at any important port there are different assessors. You would not expect an appraiser of automotive goods to be able 80709-311
Supply-National Revenue to put a value on shoes; so they will move around. One appraiser may have three or four divisions, and that is why it takes a little time to allocate them to the proper person. However, the suggestion will be taken into consideration.


Solon Earl Low: Even where you have different appraisers I should think if the person bringing back the articles would fill in the form under some such classification as I have suggested, all they would have to do would be to hand the form on from one appraiser to the other, who could quickly make the appraisal.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to ask one question concerning a remark made by the minister, that the department had some forty other acts to administer; I think those were his words. When we were dealing with public accounts yesterday it became clear at a certain stage that in respect of the national capital planning service there was a kind of parallel procedure and that the Department of Public Works was not in complete control. I think that is a fair inference from what the Minister of Public Works said-that there was not a clear chain of authority or responsibility. Would the minister give us one or two illustrations of the most important of these acts his department has to administer, so we may see how it works out there? And would he say whether or not there is any difficulty in respect to the chain of responsibility, as there clearly was with respect to the national capital planning service?


James Joseph McCann: What I did say was that we had the administration in part of a great many other acts. I can give an illustration by reference to foreign exchange control. Instead of the board having to set up an administration of their own at border points we were asked to undertake and did undertake to do that work through our customs officers. I think that was a good move from the standpoint of both economy and efficiency. In the same way we have to do with the administration of many other acts. Another illustration is the Animal Contagious Diseases Act. If animals are shipped across the border they are held at customs, instead of the Department of Agriculture having officers of their own at all the ports. We notify them that a dog belonging to so-and-so is held at the customs point at Niagara Falls, and their officers clear whether or not that animal can enter this country. That is the type of work to which I had reference.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: In the case
of the foreign ex 1 n a control board, where I understood clearly what the minister meant,
4896	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Revenue when officers of his department exercise the functions they do exercise at border points do their instructions come directly through this department or directly from the foreign exchange control board?


James Joseph McCann: They come from the board
through the department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs and excise divisions-
311. Operation and maintenance, $18,244,353.
Mr. Applewhaiie:: This item deals with
administration, and I should like to take a moment to outline to the committee and the minister a situation existing in one community of my district, which I think points a moral.
In the community of Atlin in northern British Columbia, entirely by their own efforts an airport was constructed at which for some years foreign aircraft might land and be cleared. According to my information the clearing was done by the postmaster, under some special arrangement, and his fee was a percentage of the fee he collected from those operating the planes. In other words if no planes landed there was no expense to the department. That permission was withdrawn in 1947, effective in 1948. We have no objection to the curtailment of service in the interests of economy, but in this case I submit there was no practical economy. Neither would we have any particular objection in that part of the country to a curtailment of service in the interests of security in time of war, when to have foreign planes landing at isolated places might not be a good idea. But I respectfully submit that in the years since world war II no question of security has been involved, and, so far as I am able to ascertain, no question of economy is involved.
The moral which I think this points, and which I would seriously submit not only to the minister but to the government as a whole, is that where departments of this kind, which I would call service departments as distinct from such departments as public works which are spending departments, can assist the smaller and more isolated communities to develop, even if only in a small way, at practically no expense to the government, very serious consideration should be given to extending that assistance, even though at times it may involve a slight departure from normal routine in the department.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to
ask one question which has come up on other occasions. Will the minister give us the total number of employees last year and this year,


and will he specify particularly the number of temporary employees last year and this year, and indicate what is the position with regard to temporaries for the future?


James Joseph McCann: The total number of
employees in the customs and excise divisions at the end of May was 6,454. At the moment I am not able to give the division as between permanent and temporary, but the percentage of permanent employees would be pretty high, because this is an old department and people are being made permanent. It is true that in the summer months we do take on a number of temporary, part-time employees at the border points to handle the tourist business.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Taxation division-[DOT]
314. General administration, $1,530,206.
Mr. Knowles:: This is the first item in the taxation division-


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a statement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the minister wish to make a statement first?


James Joseph McCann: Yes. It has been my practice, in presenting to the house the estimates of the taxation division of the Department of National Revenue, to make a brief statement regarding some of the more important aspects of the division's operations.
On page 41 of the estimates will be found the items comprising the requirements of the division. It will be noted that with respect to the administration of the division itself, the estimates have been reduced by $3,816,000 as compared with the estimates for the fiscal year ending March, 1951, and that there is a reduction of $10,000 in respect of the estimates for the income tax appeal board.
At pages 321 to 326 inclusive will be found the details of the various items.
Of the total amount of $25,472,294 requested by the department, some $22,040,694 represents salaries. This compares with a figure of $25,330,550 in the estimates for the previous fiscal year.
When I last reported to the house, I stated that the staff of the department at the end of May, 1950, consisted of 10,477 persons. At that time I indicated that there would be a continuing shrinkage. At the end of May, 1951, the staff had come down to 6,944 people. This, I believe, represents substantially the minimum number that can efficiently maintain the operations. There may be some further reductions due to the release of unsuitable people, but it is my expectation that the total staff will not be less than at

present and may in fact tend to be slightly higher as and when suitable applicants for employment are available.
I should probably repeat that the introduction of new methods and procedures and the bringing of the work to a current basis have been mainly responsible for the material reductions which have been effected. It may interest hon. members to learn that as of the 31st May, 1950, the average monthly salary for the division was $190, whereas at 31st May, 1951, the average monthly salary was $245. This change is partly due to the salary increases recently put into effect, and partly due to the fact that the staff generally is more highly trained and tends to consist of persons in the higher grades. Obviously the reduction in dollar amount on a strictly comparable basis would be substantially greater if the salary scales in effect at present were those in effect in the year ending March, 1950.
At this point I should make brief reference to the volume of work. At the end of May, 1950, there was an inventory of individual returns of 745,868. At the end of May, 1951, this figure was 375,983, although the returns received in the three months ending May 31, 1950 and 1951, were respectively 3,121,800 and 3,314,288.
In respect of corporation returns, the figures are equally interesting. At the end of May, 1950, there were 26,723 returns in hand, whereas at the end of May, 1951, there were 18,887.
From my personal observations, I think it has been generally acknowledged that the public are receiving satisfactory service from the department's officers throughout the country.
The second largest item in the estimates represents printing, stationery, supplies and equipment. These total $1,253,500, compared with $1,605,000 in the estimates of last year. The actual expenditures last year were some $932,000, which represents a substantial reduction. The costs of these materials are continuing to rise, but every effort is being made to effect the most extensive economies possible in the production and distribution of forms.
Unfortunately it is not possible, apparently, to eliminate large waste in the forms supplied to the public through the district offices and the local post offices. The division has made efforts to persuade taxpayers to take only enough forms to serve their individual requirements but, for one reason or another, the consumption appears to represent more than double the theoretical need.
80709-3UJ	.
Supply-National Revenue
The next large item is travelling expenses. In the estimates this year, this amounts to $792,000 compared with $900,000 in the previous year. The actual expenditures were $620,000. The administration of the taxing legislation requires a great deal of travelling to be done in the field. The expenses themselves are checked with the greatest care by the department and by officers of the treasury. I am satisfied that only necessary travelling is being done and that it is being done at minimum cost.
Postage at $650,000 compares with $700,000 in the estimates for last year, and actual expenditure of some $515,797. This represents the postage account of the district offices only. Mail originating from head office at Ottawa is carried without charge to the department.
Law costs is the only item in respect of which the division is asking for an increased .appropriation. This item for 1951-52 is $253,000, compared with $200,000 in the previous year. The greatly increased number of appeals since the creation of the income tax appeal board and the stepping up of the division's collection program were primarily responsible for the increase in legal costs.
I might comment briefly on some of the other larger items. Telephone and telegraph at $117,000 is substantially the same as last year at $120,000. Advertising is down from $60,000 to $27,000. This covers only the annual "file early" campaign conducted at the beginning of each year for the purpose of advising the public of the filing dates and the accessibility of the necessary forms, and the advantages of getting returns prepared and filed on time.
Bank charges at $57,000 compare with $60,000 last year and represent the payments to the bank in connection with the handling of ownership certificates.
Sundries at $196,700 are slightly down, from $222,000. This covers freight, express, cartage, armoured-car service, overtime meals, distribution of forms, etc.
With respect to the income tax appeal board, there is no important change in the appropriations required. The Hon. Mr. Justice Graham retired as chairman of the board at 31st December, 1950, and was subsequently replaced by Mr. Fabio Monet, K. C., of Montreal. Mr. R. S. W. Fordham, K. C., was added to the board as of April 1, 1951. The board has received since its inception some 750 appeals and has heard 335. Judgments in most of these have been rendered.

Supply-National Revenue
I should like to refer briefly to the collection program which I mentioned in my remarks last year. This program was undertaken to collect all 1949 and prior years' taxes by the end of March, 1951. As of the 15th April, 1951, there was outstanding, over 60 days old, some $11,500,000 in respect of which the division had not been able to effect or arrange for collection, out of a total amount outstanding at that time in respect of assessed returns of $72,600,000.
At the present time, the division is in a position to deal with delinquent taxpayers immediately an assessment has been issued, and it is expected that collections each year will henceforth be maintained on a current basis. Hon. members, I am sure, will agree that this is a highly desirable objective.
In speaking of collection action, I think it is appropriate to mention that overpayments of tax are being refunded to the public with great promptitude. In fact, as of this date, practically all refunds arising out of the filing of 1950 returns have already been made. There are some minor exceptions where the returns themselves could not be accepted, but generally speaking, all refunds, especially to the wage and salary group, are given first priority and are issued with the greatest dispatch. I mentioned this before in dealing with a point that arose when the house was in committee on the 1951 income tax legislation.
Last year I referred to the fact that the department still had on hand some 76,000 cheques payable to individual taxpayers covering refundable savings. At the end of April, 1951, there were still on hand some 67,655 cheques. Every possible effort has been made to find the payees. It is intended to turn the balance of these cheques back to the treasury this month.
Before closing, I should like to deal with .three points which may be of interest to the house. First, the hon. member for Middlesex East made reference in the house recently to :some difficulty that had arisen in his constituency regarding the basic herd. This problem *was dealt with by the department in 1947 and 1948 and, after lengthy discussions with representatives of the farming groups, certain rules were drawn up which seem to be acceptable to and understood by those concerned. These rules were not intended in any way to change the law in the matter, but were prepared to enable farmers to understand where they stood and to help them take the necessary steps to establish their.position.
The rules have been published in the Farmer's Guide, issued by the Department of National Revenue, during each of the last
TMr. McCann.]
three or four years. They have also been set out in many farm journals and have been most widely circulated. The publication of these rules was done to help the farmer. They in no way add to or take away from his legal rights.
Second, it is my intention this year to institute a more vigorous campaign against tax evasion. The department has been successful in uncovering tax dodgers and has collected very large sums of money as a result of its efforts. It is intended to intensify these efforts, and I should like to take this opportunity to warn those persons who have guilty consciences to come forward while they can and straighten out their affairs.
In this regard I should like to direct a particular warning to those who collaborate with tax evaders and who actively assist in the carrying out of schemes of tax fraud. There are few instances in which an important tax fraud can be committed by a taxpayer without the advice and assistance of somebody else. This is a very serious matter, and I am sure the committee will agree with me that every effort should be made to root out those persons and to deal with them vigorously.
Third, the sub-offices at Victoria, British Columbia, Kitchener, Windsor and St. Catharines, Ontario, have been or are being converted into full district offices. At Sudbury suitable space has been acquired, and steps are being taken now to open a sub-office of the Ottawa district office in Sudbury. It is hoped that it will be possible to convert this into a full district office some time next year.
The opening of these offices should prove of great practical value to the communities which they serve. There are other points in the country which will be considered in due course, but difficulties of staff and space preclude any further expansions at the present time.
The explanations I have given are to assist hon. members in considering the estimates. I shall be glad, of course, to give any further information that may be required.


Major James William Coldwell: How many field investigators has the minister checking on possible fraud or evasion? Can he give us a break-down by provinces as to where they are operating?


James Joseph McCann: All told we have 2,000 assessors from one end of the country to the other, from the Yukon to St. John's, Newfoundland. Upon the volume of work and size of the office will depend the number of assessors, but all these 2,000 assessors will

be engaged this present year or next year in tracking down evaders, in addition to their ordinary work of assessing.


Major James William Coldwell: What I meant was those who are out in the country investigating individuals. Can the minister tell us how many he has engaged in that particular work, and where they are located by provinces?


James Joseph McCann: I am sorry, but I cannot give numbers. It is not a complete answer, but the answer is: a sufficient number to do the work. It depends on the volume and the type of work in the different places. For instance, we often move assessors into head office here, not so much to do a particular job, but as part of their training.


Major James William Coldwell: I must be frank with the minister-


James Joseph McCann: I can give the hon. member the total number of staff in each district, but a break-down of the assessors, tax collectors and so on, is a little difficult.


Major James William Coldwell: What I really want to find out is whether there are more investigators in some provinces than in others on a population basis, because in some instances I think it is extraordinary that investigators seem to be quite active-I am not objecting to their activities-in some provinces, and collections from people engaged in the same industries in other provinces seem to be so much less.


James Joseph McCann: I will give the hon. member an idea of the whole field. For instance, in the Halifax office there are 192 people; in the Quebec office, 282; in Montreal, which is by far the largest, 1,278; Ottawa, 430; Toronto, 916. Now, the west: In Regina, 214; Saskatoon, 173; Calgary, 240; Edmonton, 214. That is the number of employees in the offices, and we have a relative number in each collection division and assessing division of the total number in the office. I think I get the point that the hon. gentleman is trying to make. It is that we concentrate on some provinces more than on others in the matter of investigation.


Major James William Coldwell: That is it.


James Joseph McCann: Let me disabuse his mind entirely of that. That is guided by the number of cases that we have under review and under examination.


Major James William Coldwell: I was expressing views that had been expressed to me, and I wanted to give the minister a chance to clear it up.


James Joseph McCann: No discrimination at all.


Major James William Coldwell: I want to give the minister a chance to clear up these suspicions that
Supply-National Revenue are pretty widespread in some parts of Canada.


Mr. Cardiff:: Why does the department insist on changing the income tax forms each year when they are used for the same purpose? I have reference to farm income tax. Each year the form is changed in some shape or form to collect the same kind of tax, only that it is set out in a different way.
I should like to draw the minister's attention to this. While it may be very easy for those who prepare these forms, it is rather difficult for a lot of farmers who have not very much education. They get accustomed to making out the income tax form one year, and the next year the form comes out in a different way, and they have difficulty in arriving at the answer. It is detrimental to-the department itself. While perhaps some-may make mistakes, although not intentional,, it is a bad idea for the department to change the forms every year-and they have been changed every year for the last five or six years.


James Joseph McCann: I am sure that if the hon. gentleman thinks over the matter he will realize that of necessity there are changes according to the changes in the statutes from: year to year; but there have been no material changes in the forms of 1949, 1950 and 1951.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I realize that some changes are necessary.


James Joseph McCann: The work was done and I think it is generally agreed that the short form and the larger form that we have now are much better forms. The only difference in the form is that the taxpayer, instead of having to make out three copies, makes one for himself and one which he puts in. Our constant aim is to improve the form, to have it simplified so that it will make less work.
I feel we have accomplished that to a certain extent.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: That may be true, but in; addition changes have been made, but for-the same purpose, that of collecting the same tax from the same source. The form is different, and many misunderstand it when, they come to make it out, and find it awkward, to arrive at the same answer. I know the law has changed in some respects, but this has nothing to do with that part of it. I do not complain about that.


Mr. Johnston:: It has been stated in the press that corporations in Quebec will be allowed to deduct the education tax for income tax purposes. Does that apply to other provinces, and to individuals as well?


James Joseph McCann: That judgment was given only yesterday by the income tax appeal
4900	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Revenue board. It refers to the province of Quebec, because, so far as I know, it is the only province with a special tax on corporations for educational purposes.


Charles Edward Johnston: But they will be allowed to make the deduction on their federal tax?


James Joseph McCann: That is the decision of the income tax appeal board. If that decision stands, or is not further appealed to the exchequer court or the supreme court, it will be the law.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Unless the law is changed.


Charles Edward Johnston: Then it will be applicable right across the country?


James Joseph McCann: There is no tax known as a special education tax on corporations in provinces other than Quebec.


John George Diefenbaker: Just a passing reference to the appeal board about which mention has been made. I think it has done a remarkably good job, and has filled a need regarding which there had been complaints over the years with respect to arbitrary rulings. It was pointed out that there could be no appeal, except after an advance of a large amount of costs in the exchequer court. The board is performing its task fairly and expeditiously.
I rose to continue the discussion of the point raised by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. I am particularly interested in .the amount paid by farmers across this country by way of income tax. I should like to have the information by provinces. The statistics are available, and I should like to have it presented in that way. Then I should like to know the number of enforcement officers who are visiting the farmers.
I do not think they are called enforcement officers, but have a high-sounding title.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Assessors?


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, no.


James Joseph McCann: Intelligence officers.


John George Diefenbaker: Intelligence officers; that is right. I knew they had a name of their own. Would the minister give me the number of them by provinces? Then would he tell me the amounts, by provinces, recovered last year by way of special assessments in connection with alleged frauds committed against the department? I understand the aggregate amount was considerable. I read about it in one of the national magazines some time ago; apparently, therefore, the information is available.
I should like to know also whether there have been any retirements among the high officials in any of the provinces, particularly


in Winnipeg. Has there been a retirement at that point of an official some eleven or twelve years younger than the ordinary retirement ag:? I do not want to mention any names, but I should like to have the circumstances under which that retirement took place. This official received a salary of $8,000 a year, and I should like to know whether upon retirement he is on pension, and if so, the amount of the pension. I shall not ask the reason for the retirement, unless the minister wishes to give it. However, the matter has excited considerable interest

that this gentleman should have retired at an age far below the normal retirement age, particularly when apparently he was performing his duties with ability and efficiency. I do not think the minister will have any difficulty in knowing to whom I refer.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Chairman, the information I have is not broken down for farmers only. We do have one classification including farmers and fishermen. There would of course be no fishermen in Saskatchewan.


John George Diefenbaker: I thought there was some division, because there was reference in a national magazine to the distribution.


James Joseph McCann: The amount collected in 1948 was $20,589,000, and in 1949 $19,198,000. Is there any district in particular the hon. member has in mind?


John George Diefenbaker: What was the amount by provinces?


James Joseph McCann: We do not keep the information by provinces; it is kept by districts.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister give it for districts?


James Joseph McCann: For instance, in Saskatoon the amount for 1948 was $2,200,000.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the figure for Regina?


James Joseph McCann: In 1949 it was $3,614,000 for Regina, $3,030,000 for Saskatoon, $6,160,000 for Calgary and $997,000 for Edmonton.


John George Diefenbaker: No fishermen around there.


James Joseph McCann: No. The hon. member will understand why it is not possible to have the information by provinces. For instance, the office in Ottawa would take in the area across the river, in Quebec.


John George Diefenbaker: Perhaps the minister would give the information for the districts.


James Joseph McCann: The next question was as to the amount of money in the last year by reason of tax evasions.


John George Diefenbaker: But the minister has not completed the answer. The total was over $19 million, and he has accounted for only $13 million.


James Joseph McCann: The $19 million is for all of
Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: So far the minister has
shown only Alberta and Saskatchewan, and he gives a total of about $13 million.


James Joseph McCann: Here are the figures by
districts:
St. John's, Newfoundland	 $	2,000
Halifax	 46,000
Saint John	 98,000
Charlottetown	 6,000
Quebec	  2,000
Montreal	 47,000
Sherbrooke	 1,000
Ottawa	 37,000
Kingston	 25,000
Belleville	 29,000
Toronto	 335,000
Hamilton	 576,000
London	 841,000
Fort William	 164,000
Winnipeg	 1,586,000
Regina	 3,614,000
Saskatoon	 3,030,000
Calgary	 6,160,000
Edmonton	 997,000
Vancouver	 1,602,000


Mr. Fair:: I would suggest that you transfer inspectors from the west to the east and some from the east to the west.


James Joseph McCann: I realize the criticism that
is being made, that not as much income tax is paid by farmers in Ontario and Quebec as is paid by farmers in the western provinces. But it must be remembered that it is a different operation. You have a commercial industrial type of farming in the wheat growing districts in western Canada, but in the province of Quebec it is more a way of life. The income is smaller and the exemptions are larger because of the big families. Mixed farming is carried on where the returns probably are not as high.


Major James William Coldwell: I think what the minister
says is true to a degree, but I believe there is another reason. Farmers in the west deliver all their grain to the elevators, and every penny they get is known because a careful check is made by the department. But when I drive through eastern Canada X see large barns, fine dairy herds and so on, and I find it difficult to understand why the farmers are not making enough to pay income tax. Not only does it puzzle me; it puzzles everybody who drives through the country. I am not criticizing the individual farmer, but it requires more explanation than I can give when I am asked questions. I represent a rural constituency, and when figures of this kind are published, invariably
Supply-National Revenue some of my supporters want to know why it is that farmers in Saskatchewan and Alberta pay such large amounts in income tax, while the farmers in the east, with their fine barns and all the rest of it, do not pay anything like the same amount.


James Joseph McCann: I assure the committee that there is absolutely no discrimination with reference to the application of the law. I have wondered the same thing myself. In the vicinity of Montreal there are many beautiful farms with large barns, but many of them are hobby farms. Previously the owners were permitted to write off their losses on the farm against their other businesses, but that has been changed and this year they are allowed only a maximum of $5,000. That picture will be changed.


John George Diefenbaker: How many of those
hobby farmers were there?


James Joseph McCann: I have not counted them.


John George Diefenbaker: How many intelligence
officers are there? This is something the farmers in the west find difficult to understand, because when estates are wound up they seem to be quite small. Apparently they have paid it all out in income tax.


James Joseph McCann: The total number of intelligence officers is 83, divided up as follows:
Head office	 10
Halifax	 1
Saint John	 1
Quebec	 5
Montreal	 35
Sherbrooke	   1
Ottawa	,	 5
Belleville	 1
Toronto	 7
Hamilton	 2
London	   4
Fort William	 1
Winnipeg	 2
Regina	 2
Saskatoon	
Calgary	 1
Edmonton	   1
Vancouver	 3
Forty per cent of the total are in Montreal.


John George Diefenbaker: Are these gentlemen with the euphonious name those who look after farm income tax matters?


James Joseph McCann: No.


John George Diefenbaker: I know in my own constituency there are individuals who seem to be engaged in agricultural checking.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Very efficient.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not criticizing their efficiency; I am thinking of the number that seem to be on the march. It is for that reason that I should like to know how many there are of these people who go round from farm
4902	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Revenue to farm. The figures given by the minister would indicate that there are only three in Saskatchewan.


James Joseph McCann: What the hon. member is referring to is the assessor who goes out and does the work. Much of this information was given in answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Assiniboia and reported on page 662 of Hansard of February 26, 1951. The hon. member asked these questions:
What amount of income tax was paid by farmers in each province for each year from 1940 to 1949 both inclusive?
How many income tax inspectors dealing with farm income tax were employed in each province for each of the above years?


John George Diefenbaker: What is the tota19


James Joseph McCann: 322.


John George Diefenbaker: How many in Saskatchewan?


James Joseph McCann: 74.


John George Diefenbaker: We certainly have a good proportion.


Mr. Harkness:: If I heard the minister correctly, I believe he said the amount collected in Calgary was some $6,100,000 and in Edmonton, $900,000 odd, or less than one-sixth. Where is the division line between Calgary and Edmonton? How can the minister explain that great disparity? I think anyone who came from around Edmonton would contend that their farm land was better than the farm land around Calgary, although I do not say I agree with that. I just cannot understand this great disparity.


James Joseph McCann: Experience has shown that there are a greater number of small farms around Edmonton and the revenue is less.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Where is the dividing line- at Red Deer?


James Joseph McCann: About Red Deer.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is inconceivable that there should be between six and seven times as much collected from Red Deer south as there is collected from Red Deer north; it just does not add up.


James Joseph McCann: It might be of interest to note that there are almost twice as many taxable farm returns in Calgary as in Edmonton, 10,930 as against 5,070. The total filing returns in Calgary was 22,800, and in Edmonton 23,750. There were very nearly the same number of returns filed in each of those two offices, but when it came to the matter of income it was found that there were almost twice as many taxable in Calgary as there were in Edmonton. They may have a lot of side investments in the new oil developments around Calgary.
[Mr. Diefenbaker.!


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister give the record of the number of farmers returns throughout Canada by districts?


James Joseph McCann: Yes. The latest figures are for 1949, and the number of returns filed by farmers is as follows:	St. John's, 140;
Charlottetown, 3,410; Sydney, 420; Halifax, 4,320; Saint John, N.B., 31,270; Quebec, 2,630; Sherbrooke, 1,520; Montreal, 1,550; Ottawa, 5,320; Kingston, 3,200; Belleville, 5,200; Toronto, 5,760; Hamilton, 11,190; London, 17,850; Fort William, 950; Winnipeg, 26,270; Regina, 31,450; Saskatoon, 22,160; Calgary, 22,800; Edmonton, 23,750, and Vancouver, 15,500.


Mr. G'ufhier (Porlneuf):: 
John George Diefenbaker: I have had that privilege, and I never found any more hospitable people anywhere.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: Come again.


John George Diefenbaker: I shall be glad to come again. I was not dealing with that. I am dealing with the fact that the farmers of Saskatchewan seem to be the ones most sought out. That is what I am speaking about. According to the figures that I took down, 53,610 farmers in Saskatchewan made returns last year, and even in the face of such returns we are placed in the position of having in that province the largest number of enforcement officers with one exception. As a matter of fact the farmers of Saskatchewan say that we have got so many of them going around that they have to wear some form of identification so that one will not be after the other. I mention that situation not because, as the minister says, there is any discrimination, but because it is very difficult to understand why that should be so. Yet when these farmers come to the end of their lives and their estates are wound up, there are very small estates in that province.


Major James William Coldwell: We are constantly being asked questions about this matter. I know I am, and it is and will be difficult to explain why there are 74 of these investigators or assessors in Saskatchewan and, for example,

92 in Ontario, Alberta has 51, with a smaller area to cover and a smaller number of farmers; but when you look at the other provinces it is difficult for a member of parliament to explain this matter. After all, while we are not members on the government side of the house, we are often expected to give answers to questions dealing with government administration. I agree with the hon. member for Lake Centre that it seems that in Saskatchewan there is more activity in this regard than anywhere else in the dominion.


James Joseph McCann: One of the reasons for that is that there appears to be a little more difficulty in getting the necessary information in Saskatchewan.


Major James William Coldwell: No.	[DOT]


James Joseph McCann: That is the experience. If the returns were complete they would not need to go to the farms at all, but by reason of incomplete returns, by reason of lack of information, it is necessary, and it is more economical and produces better results, for the assessor, instead of sitting behind a desk in the office and waiting for all the information to come in by mail, to go out and visit the farmer.


Major James William Coldwell: It seems strange to me that the Saskatchewan farmer is less able to make out his income tax return than other farmers, particularly when all the facts are available. He delivers practically everything he produces to the elevators, and it is inconceivable that it would be more difficult for him.


James Joseph McCann: The elevator does not fix the amount of his claimed expenses.


Major James William Coldwell: No, but on the other hand other people have expenses and claims, and one cannot say that they find it difficult to make out their income tax returns.


Mr. Cruickshank:: I am sure the hon. member for Lake Centre and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar do not want to imply that because of the beautiful barns the dairymen should be paying more. The reason the dairy farmer has not made as extensive returns is that he has not had the returns. I am sure the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and the hon. member for Lake Centre would like to see the dairyman get his fair share, but he does not; therefore he is not in a position to make these returns. I accept the hospitality of my friend from Quebec, and I would invite these hon. members to come to Fraser Valley. They will see beautiful barns there, but they all belong to doctors or lawyers who have hobby farms. They are not dairymen. When I heard that there
Supply-National Revenue have been 15,550 returns from the small agricultural district in British Columbia, then I think that Saskatchewan has been exceedingly lucky.
I do not want the impression to get out that the farmers of the Fraser valley and the province of British Columbia have not been paying their fair share just as much as the farmers of Saskatchewan. One difference in British Columbia, and particularly in the Fraser valley, is that we are home-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is there anything else in British Columbia besides the Fraser valley?


George Alexander Cruickshank: -to make out our
income tax forms. We are not like the wheat growers. We are not able to go to Florida or California. We are home to make out our returns.


Major James William Coldwell: That is a legend.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Do not leave the impression that the dairy farmer of British Columbia is not paying his fair share.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Do I understand that the hon. member for Fraser Valley, whom I have always regarded as the great representative of the dairy industry, has now told us that he represents hobby farmers?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I must admit that in our province one accepts the responsibility when elected of representing the actual farmers and those of the trust companies who come to British Columbia to retire.
Item stands.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at two o'clock.
DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS Department and missions abroad-
84. Departmental administration, $2,272,597.


George Randolph Pearkes: Has the Prime Minister any further statement to make regarding the Ming Sung episode, for which reason this item was allowed to stand when it was first called?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: On June 15, on the suggestion of the leader of the opposition, this item was allowed to stand pending such further information as might be obtained from Hong Kong. Information has been obtained from our trade commissioner in Hong Kong that immediately upon receipt of our inquiry he made a preliminary investigation; that he had read the guild's letter and had communicated with the "Ming Sung Industrial Company Limited (H.K.)"-which

Supply-External Affairs I take it means a company having a Hong Kong charter-as well as with various Hong Kong government officials by telephone, explaining the matter to them and asking for preliminary comment.
The trade commissioner informs us that each of the government officials gave an immediate opinion that so far as he was concerned the charges in the guild's letter seemed fantastic. For example, the director of marine denied absolutely that the vessels were contravening any regulations within his purview. Indeed he said that so far as he was concerned the vessels were the best operated of any based on the harbour, and that there was certainly bias in the opinion expressed by the guild. The personal assistant (trade) to the director of commerce and industry stated that he had never seen any reason to suspect the ships of smuggling gold or anything else, and that to his knowledge the Ming Sung Industrial Company had never been charged with carrying strategic materials whose export was prohibited, or any item for which an export licence had not been issued by the department. Of course the Ming Sung company itself scouted the idea that there was any wrongdoing by their ships.
Then he made inquiries about this so-called Russian captain. There is a captain Peter Francis Hanisch master of the Yen Men. He ascertained that this man was born of mixed parentage in Ningpo, Chekiang province, in 1886, his mother being a Chinese woman and his father a British subject named Joseph Hanisch, employed in the Chinese maritime customs. Both parents are dead, and it is now difficult to get positive verification of these details, but Hanisch had shown our trade commissioner a photostat of his certificate of Chinese naturalization dated April, 1947, issued under the Republic of China Citizenship Act, and the commissioner was quite satisfied that he is a Chinese. He says there is no other person associated with the operation of these ships whom the guild could have had in mind as possibly being a Russian.
With respect to the charges of gold speculation, it may very well be that, as happens very frequently, passengers have been charged with individual smuggling, but there was nothing attributable to the operation of the ships themselves. He examined a recent cargo manifest and found nothing on it that was on the list of the Hong Kong authorities as strategic materials. There were some items for which we require export permits from Canada, but none that was not in the categories that were being traded out of Hong Kong. He states that of course there the situation was rather difficult-balancing
the warehousing trade of the crown colony, which is its means of existence, and the desirability of keeping possible strategic materials away from the Chinese communists. He pointed out what we already knew, that their list of strategic materials was not as extensive as ours and was not as extensive as the United States list, and, as a matter of fact, that the Americans wanted to interrupt all trade of any kind with Hong Kong.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the Prime Minister allow a question?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: What were the items that would be permitted under the Hong Kong regulation but would have been denied export under Canadian export authority, and 'were being carried in these ships?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not know that I could give a full list of the things that are prohibited under the Hong Kong regulation.


John George Diefenbaker: Generally speaking, what were they?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: 
John George Diefenbaker: Those are tons?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes. Caustic soda, 15; iron strapping, 3J; brass rods, 1; used copper tubing, 6J. In his opinion these quantities themselves were not unreasonable.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the entire list?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That is the entire list we got from him. He claimed that he had checked all the manifests for the period in question. Then he pointed out that they were tightening up the lists there. I understand that since June 25 the amendments made there make their list practically the same as ours.


John George Diefenbaker: That was the announcement by Sir Hartley Shawcross.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes. I think that is the only information I can give.
Information has already been given in the house about the way in which the ships were operating. Two of them are on regular scheduled service. If it is desired that I put
[Mr. St. Laurent.!

on the record the information, here it is. Present routes of the seven vessels are as follows:
S. S. Hu Men and S. S. Yu Men are laid up. S. S. Yen Men laid up since September 15, 1949. Canadian registration effective on June 13, 1950. First operation, March 20, 1951 and resumed service on June 17, 1951, carrying cargo between Hong Kong and Canton. M. V. Lung Men, Hong Kong, Macao and Canton. Run every Monday, Wednesday and Friday. M. V. Chien Men occasionally Hong Kong and Canton run. M. V. Shih Men and M. V. Chi Men as reserve, occasionally for Hong Kong and Canton run.
I think I mentioned yesterday, in answer to a question by the hon. member for Lake Centre, that our information was that something over thirty ships of British registry had exemption from this requirement of British subjects only being used as officers.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the Prime Minister allow a question there?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: Would those thirty ships' exemptions include the entire crew, or just one or more members of the crew?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That I do not know. I can put on the record, as I have it here, the way the information was given to us. I will have to paraphrase this because it came in cipher. It refers to a telegram about ship exemptions, and to about thirty British ships based on Hong Kong, being small coasting steamers and sea-going tugs, operating without British officers because of lack of such British officers. There is no specific information as to whether it applies to the whole crew or just to individual members or individual officers.


John George Diefenbaker: But these are just small tugs and coasting vessels?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Small coasting steamers and sea-going tugs.
On the whole, I must repeat that, from the very inception of this matter, I have been greatly concerned about it. I have used all possible means to secure information. There may be diverging views as to the propriety of allowing to be performed the operations that were allowed by the crown colony of Hong Kong. There may be those who believe that the policy the United States recommended would have been the preferable policy, namely, to break off trade entirely. But that was not the view we took. We took the view that the United Kingdom authorities, with their long experience in oriental foreign policy, were certainly as well informed as we
Supply-External Affairs could be about the situation, and certainly as careful as we ourselves would be about the security and success of their men and ours operating in Korea, and that there was no requirement that we should attempt to assert that our wisdom and our consideration for the proper safety of our men was greater than theirs.


George Randolph Pearkes: I appreciate the endeavours the government has made to obtain the additional information on this question which was raised some two weeks ago. I also appreciate the difficulties which exist in obtaining information from Hong Kong. Correspondence takes many weeks to come in the ordinary course of events, and even an air mail letter takes four or five days to come from Hong Kong to Ottawa. Since this question was raised I have received cables, letters, press reports and photographs from Hong Kong, from sources which I have every reason to believe are thoroughly reliable. So far as I know, some of them have no connection whatever with the China coast guild.
Regarding that organization, the Secretary of State for External Affairs on June 15, when this matter was under discussion, asked whether I associated myself with the accuracy of those statements, or their inaccuracy, as he said. I have taken every means at my disposal to find out the degree of reliability and responsibility that might be placed upon the organization known as the China coast guild of navigating and engineer officers. I am pleased to associate myself with that organization to the extent that I believe they are composed of thoroughly responsible officers. They are officers of the merchant marine, and I have no reason whatever to believe that they would attempt to give information which was not to the best of their knowledge absolutely correct. Much of that information has been supported by letters that I have received from other people.
In his remarks the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that I-referring to myself-would not be so happy about the sources of my information when additional information was received by the government. I must take exception to that remark, because the source of my information was in the main the China coast guild, an organization, as I say, of responsible officers of the merchant navy. I would call the attention of the committee to the fact that only a few years ago, during the second war, we were referring to the merchant navy as the fourth arm of the service, and I cannot help thinking that to cast any sort of doubt on the reliability of that organization is an insult to the men who played such a gallant part in the last war.

Supply-External Affairs
As I say, I have taken every step that was possible and open to me, short of going to Hong Kong, which was not practicable, to verify the correctness of their statements. The first statement made in the letter was a description of the routes which were being travelled by these seven ships of the Ming Sung company. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport gave that information. The Minister of Transport on June 21, at page 4412 of Hansard, said:
I have been informed that two vessels, the Lung Men and the Chien Men, are operating between Hong Kong and Macao; two vessels, the Hu Men and Yu Men are laid up at Hong Kong and have been laid up there for the past ten days.
It is quite reasonable to expect that. One must remember that these vessels were originally built for the river trade. The fact that for months they have been trading in the open sea would naturally result in the slackening of their bottoms, which would require extensive repairs. Then he goes on to say:
I am further informed that three vessels, the Shill Men, the Chi Men and the Yen Men, are operating between Hong Kong and Canton but not on a regular service.
That is a little difficult to relate to the statements which appeared in the journal of the Department of Trade and Commerce called Foreign Affairs, where under date of June 1 we are told:
The steamship Chien Men, the Canadian-built river vessel belonging to the Ming Sung Industrial Company, departed on the first trip signalling the resumption of regular passenger service between Hong Kong and Canton. Although the Ming Sung vessels have been running a weekly service to Canton via Macao and ferrying Malayan-Chinese repatriates to the mainland, for several months, this sailing of Chien Men marked the first resumption of direct scheduled Hong Kong-Canton service since the latter port was occupied by the Chinese communists almost two years ago. The new service will operate three times a week, leaving Hong Kong every Monday, Wednesday and Friday.
According to the exemptions dated May 9, contained in sessional paper 124-B and tabled on Wednesday, June 20 of this year, the relaxation is granted to these ships, ships permitted to clear for voyages between Hong Kong and Macao. I call attention to the fact that there is no mention whatever of any relaxation being granted to these ships to trade direct from Hong Kong to Canton. That was the reason I asked the Prime Minister this morning whether there was any further exemption or extension of exemption which would permit the vessels to clear from Hong Kong direct to Canton.
On June 15 the hon. member for Leeds asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs if there were ships flying the flags of other nations of United Nations plying on this
[Mr. Pearkes.l
triangular route. I presume that that meant of course the Hong Kong-Macao-Canton route. The Secretary of State for External Affairs said, at page 4198 of Hansard:
To the best of my knowledge there are a great many ships still engaged in the China trade.
The hon. member for Leeds said:
I refer particularly to ships flying the stars and stripes or flags of the commonwealth or of France.
As I say, the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his reply said:
To the best of my knowledge there are a great many ships still engaged in the China trade.
I have made every inquiry that I can, and to the best of my knowledge there are no British ships or United States ships plying into Canton under their own flags. There may be Chinese vessels plying between Hong Kong and Canton, but so far as I can find out-and I have checked with official sources-there are no British or United States vessels flying those flags trading between Hong Kong and Canton. I think that is quite reasonable to assume, because there is an embargo so far as the United States is concerned, and if these vessels did enter a communist port the chances are that they would be seized. I mention that merely to emphasize the uncertainty and difficulty that there sometimes is in getting accurate information.
In pre-war days British-owned vessels did carry passengers and cargo from Hong Kong direct to Canton. As I have said, so far as I know there are no British or United States vessels entering Canton now. The advice I received from Hong Kong is that if they attempted to do so they would be shot at from that point. Therefore all evacuees and cargo going direct from Hong Kong to Canton, such as evacuees or repatriates from Malaya, ' Singapore and Indonesia, would have to travel on these Men vessels, if they went direct from Hong Kong to Canton. As we have been told in the official report of the Department of Trade and Commerce, this repatriation is going on.
I now come to the question of crews. Exemption was granted to this company to employ ships' officers of other than Canadian or British nationality. There was some question about one of those officers, and the information I had concerning one Hanisch corresponds very much with the remarks of the Prime Minister today. He is of mixed parentage, his mother being a Chinese woman. My advice was that his father was an Austrian, while the Prime Minister's advice was that he was a British subject. That is immaterial. He has been a nationalist Chinese. One point which must be noted at this time is that the company has never

stated that these Chinese officers and crews are nationalist Chinese. I suppose that is probably because if they were nationalists they would be arrested on the very next trip they took into Canton. I do not think there is much doubt about that. The only reasonable assumption that can be made is that for purposes of their own safety, these men have acknowledged themselves to be communists in order that they might trade into these communist ports. To suggest otherwise I think would be to avoid facing up to the reality of the situation. In present-day China any resident or inhabitant who is not a communist-well, there is no question about it; it is just a case of being a communist, or else.
The report of May 9 gives as the reason for the exemption that there were no British subjects with certificates of competency available for employment as masters and ships' officers. That is so. But it is rather contradictory, I suggest, to state that we must consider the evidence given by the China coast guild as being biased, presumably because their members want to get those jobs. British or Canadian officers are either available or not available. And if there are no members of the guild available to take over those duties, I do not see why the evidence of the guild should be considered biased.
Now we come to the question of cargo. The Prime Minister has read out a list of certain articles, which corresponds in a general way with some of the information I have. I have information to the effect that steel plate, railway material, ship repairs and lumber have been shipped in pretty considerable quantities. To give a specific example, I understand that on or about June 14 this year, the date on which this question was raised in the house, sixty tons of steel wire was shipped on one of these vessels out of Hong Kong to Canton.
The Prime Minister is reported in the Ottawa Journal as having admitted that limited supplies of scrap iron and rubber tires were shipped from Hong Kong to Red China. I think the information that has been given already this afternoon supports that. I suggest that while it may be possible for a reasonable check to be made on shipments direct from Hong Kong to Canton, no such check can be made on shipments from Macao to Canton. So far as I know, there is no Canadian or even British ambassador or trade commissioner in Macao. The means of checking those shipments would be extremely difficult, and one would have to rely entirely upon Portuguese officials.
Supply-External Affairs


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: And upon the manifests that the Chinese officers of the ships would have.


George Randolph Pearkes: I will come to the question of manifests. No doubt shipments which were consigned to Macao in the first place might be reconsigned to Canton without even being unloaded at Macao. To indicate the extent of the trade that there is in commodities which we must say are of essential value, and possibly of considerable strategic value to China, I would quote briefly from a Hong Kong paper this United Press dispatch dated at Macao June 23, under the heading "Frantic rush to beat export ban":
Large amounts of strategic materials are being rushed here from Hong Kong in a last-minute bid to beat the June 25 deadline when the Hong Kong export ban comes into force.
Regular steamers from the British colony are calling here with crammed holds. Cargo space on Macao-bound sailings are fully booked through Sunday and frantic merchants are chartering junks in order to clear out their stocks from Hong Kong before Monday.
The main items involved are machine and automobile spare parts, steel plates, rods and wire.
It will be recalled that in the local papers there was an announcement of a junk having been seized immediately after that. One will note that since that question was raised in the house the British government has seen fit to tighten its regulations regarding exports of materials from Hong Kong. Starting on Tuesday-I believe that was the 25th-there was to be a complete embargo of strategic goods coming out from Hong Kong to China. The Hong Kong government was being requested to set up an import licensing system which would keep out war materials from non-British sources intended for re-export to the Chinese communists.
There is every indication that this unfortunate trade has been going on. While it may be desirable to maintain trade with China, undoubtedly certain sources have abused that privilege, or stretched it to the very limit, and have been sending out materials which are considered of strategic value. I suggest that, while it may be extremely difficult to obtain precise information, a check of the import and export manifests would possibly disclose some of the articles that are being sent. They should disclose all, but the run between Macao and Canton will probably be retained with offices at either Macao or Canton, and it might not be difficult for manifests to disappear, or even for false stamps to be obtained.
I am sure that our trade commissioner in Hong Kong will do his utmost to check and supervise this trade. He is a young man known to me, and I cast no reflections upon his ability. He is in his early thirties, and

Supply-External Affairs had a distinguished record in the last war. He joined the trade commissioner's branch, I think in 1949, but despite his ability and energy undoubtedly he will be lacking in some of the experience necessary to cope with the numerous ramifications of oriental negotiations.
We have had little information about the financial side of the deal. We are told that there are three Canadian banks involved, and that payments are being made now.
I come now to what may be described as the personal side of this unhappy controversy. It will be recalled that the Secretary of State for External Affairs made the statement when replying to me that I should be sorry for having raised this problem.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think if the Secretary
of State for External Affairs were here he would say that he was sorry that the debate had taken that turn. I am sure that all hon. members realize that the hon. member for Nanaimo has been attempting to get as accurate information as he can, and I hope he will realize that we on our side have been doing likewise. We may draw different conclusions from the information we get, but I am sure that the Secretary of State for External Affairs would wish to state publicly that he felt that the hon. member for Nanaimo was doing his best to serve the interests of all Canadians, particularly those Canadians who are serving so gallantly on the peninsula of Korea.


George Randolph Pearkes: I thank the Prime Minister
for that statement, because I was going to ask him to express similar sentiments to the end that I should not be expected to feel sorry for having attempted to do my duty in bringing before this house a most serious situation.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I made the statement
because I am sure, from my knowledge of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, that that is the kind of statement he would have been most happy to make.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am pleased to accept that
statement, which I think will close the personal side of this matter. I can only express the hope that now that so much information has been placed at the disposal of the government, the government will pursue the investigation with energy. If it is considered necessary to make further investigation, or possibly to restrict further exports or conveyance of materials to the enemy, I hope that that will be done.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think probably we all
feel that since the statement of Sir Hartley Shawcross in the House of Commons we are now seeing pretty much eye to eye with the

British authorities. Their experience will be of assistance to the good will and natural capabilities of our young trade commissioner who is on the spot.


Mr. Fulford:: I should like to explain to
the hon. member for Nanaimo why I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs if there were not other ships of countries of the United Nations and the British commonwealth sailing from Hong Kong to Macao and Canton. A friend of mine and his wife are at present waiting in Shanghai to be repatriated. They are unable to leave directly from Shanghai due to the blockade by the nationalist government of the mouth of the Whangpoo river. They have two alternatives. They can go overland by way of Nanking, Peking and Tientsin, and take a British ship from there. As an alternative they can go to Canton and be repatriated from Canton to Hong Kong. Under the circumstances it may be a good thing that there are Canadian ships that will be able to repatriate, not only Canadian citizens and British subjects, but other nationals who have been unfortunate enough to be caught in communist China.


Mr. Adamson:: I have one brief suggestion to make to the Prime Minister. At the present time we have no minister or charge d'affaires in Austria, and I should like the Prime Minister to give this some consideration. There is no country in Europe that offers such extraordinarily valuable grounds for the supply of information, and this is particularly true of Vienna. I realize that we have not signed a formal peace treaty with Austria when we have done so with western Germany, and there are probably difficulties in the way, but I do believe it would be worth while for Canada to be represented there.


The Chairman:: It was agreed that this
item would stand in order to discuss the Ming Sung affair only.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Notwithstanding the
agreement, may I say that the matter is receiving and will continue to receive careful attention. We hope that there will be developments in a relatively short time in the theoretical state of war which still exists. The United Kingdom, the United States, France, ourselves and others are discussing how to do that and what will be the opportune moment.


John George Diefenbaker: It was well for the
Prime Minister to pay a tribute to the hon. member for Nanaimo for having brought up this matter, and it seems more than a coincidence that since it was brought up an announcement has been made by Sir Hartley

Shawcross respecting the denial of further exports of a strategic nature to Canton from Hong Kong. However, one other matter which was mentioned by the hon. member for Nanaimo deserves attention. In this issue of Foreign Trade appears an item which refers to the fact that on May 21 the S. S. Chien Men resumed passenger service between Hong Kong and Canton. Then it goes on to say that Ming Sung vessels have been running a weekly service to Canton and ferrying Malayan-Chinese repatriates to the mainland. Certainly those who are being repatriated in those ships flying the Canadian ensign with the maple leaf on it are in fact communists returning to communist China; otherwise they would not be repatriated. I should like to ask the Prime Minister what is going to be done with a view to ensuring that ships flying the Canadian flag will not in fact be used to carry communists back to communist China.
There is something mysterious about the two other ships. The other day the parliamentary assistant stated that there were nine ships altogether comprising the ships built in Canadian yards and turned over to China. Two disappeared under communist control. Five are carrying the Canadian ensign, and we have never been able to find out, or at least it has not been clearly stated, what has happened to the other two.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Only seven were transferred to Canadian registry. There are two of them that have constantly been laid up in the harbour. They have not been put into operation. Since the transfer to British registry it is our information that they have remained inactive and that they are in the port of Hong Kong.


John George Diefenbaker: What about the other two?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There are two about which we know nothing.


John George Diefenbaker: They are actually
missing?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: They are missing, probably like the ships that pass in the night. So far as our knowledge is concerned, they have passed into the night. With respect to the other matter, the trade commissioner is being supplied with reports of everything that has been discussed here, and I suppose from time to time we will get further information from him because he is being informed of all that has been the subject of controversy here, and has been asked to get us all possible information.
Supply-External Affairs


John George Diefenbaker: Can parliament and the Canadian people be assured that, having regard to what has been brought up here and the investigation that has taken place since, what was taking place before the hon. member for Nanaimo brought the matter to the attention of the house will not be permitted to continue?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I should not like to give any undertaking as broad as that. These refugees from Malaya may be what are called, in the information we get, passengers travelling from Hong Kong to Canton. I would imagine that some might be inclined to say they are refugees being repatriated to the mainland of China.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what they were called in the press di:patch.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes, and that is quite
possible. I am not discrediting the press dispatch, but my hon. friend knows as well as I do that when newspapermen hava not accurate information as to the reasons or explanations for things, they find explanations of their own. The newspaper Le Droit had a very curious explanation ihe other day of the fact that we were having a caucus.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not going to enter into controversy with the Prime Minister on this matter, but this is not a newspaper report. This is a report of the foreign trade service of Canada from Hong Kong in which it is stated that the Ming Sung vessels have been running a weekly service ferrying Malayan-Chinese repatriates to the mainland. That was not just speculation. That was in the monthly issue of the publication Foreign Trade, issued by the Department of Trade and Commerce under the name of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It is for that reason 1 point out that it is stated therein that these ships were being used for that purpose. I ask the Prime Minister whether he has any information as to the numbers who have been repatriated through this service since May 16, 1950.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, we have not. All I can say is that we are having every angle of that trade investigated, and that we are most anxious that there shall be nothing improper done while ships are carrying the Canadian flag. I think I can add, without betraying anything that I should not because of oaths of office, that before we heard anything at all about the kind of trade that was being carried on by these ships we were already worried over the fact that they might get into trouble, and that it might get us into an embarrassing position because of the fact that it would be reported that "the trouble concerned a ship

Supply-External Affairs having Canadian registry. We are worried about these different aspects, but so far it has been felt that we have received no information that requires us to withdraw the Canadian registration, and that, although the financial consequences should not be the first consideration, they have to be a consideration in view of the amount involved.


John George Diefenbaker: Had the Prime Minister and the government considered this information as to the possibly perilous situation that might be created by ships flying the Canadian flag plying in such waters prior to the receipt of that letter from the guild?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes, weeks before that. Here is the way in which it presented itself to us. If these ships were fired on, or if anything was done to them by the Chinese government and it was reported that armed forces of the People's Republic of China had committed aggression against a ship flying the Canadian flag, that might involve embarrassing complications because of the form in which it might be broadcast throughout the world.


John George Diefenbaker: There was some question as to whether there was default by the Ming Sung Industrial Company in respect of the $12 million owing to the shipbuilding company or to the bankers and guaranteed by the government. I have not been able to look over the mass of information brought down in the returns asked for by myself, but even a casual perusal seems to indicate that some hundreds of thousands of dollars of the indebtedness was cancelled within the last year. Is that correct?


Mr.   SI Laurenl@: No, that is not correct. There was an amount cancelled in the advances to the builders. They got into difficulties because of the rapid increase in the cost of materials, labour, and so forth, and because of what they considered to be the very stringent requirements of the owners. The contracts were drawn with certain clauses that they were to do such and such according to the requirements of the owners. The builders claimed that the owners were going much further than owners normally go in asserting rights under clauses of that kind. The situation was that some of those builders were going broke and would not have been able to finish the ships. Then the guarantee of the government would have become exigible for the very substantial portions already expended, and there would have been hulks not fitted for anything but this Chinese trade, which might have had little more than scrap value.
[Mr. St. Laurent.}
I do not remember the exact details, but the matter was gone into very carefully. Certain increases were agreed to by the owners, and there was a certain remission by the government of advances made on the cost of building the ships. A comptroller was put in one of the yards, and the department made advances to carry the job to completion. A mortgage was taken on the yard, and I know that in making the settlement there was/ a remission of a part of what had been thus expended, which was considered not to be substantial in view of what would have been the responsibility under the export insurance policy if the ships had not been completed. My information from the Department of Finance is that their information from the banks is that there has been no default on the terms under which the money was advanced by the banks.


John George Diefenbaker: The security for payment of the $12 million was nine ships. The Prime Minister says two of the ships have passed in the night, no one knows where.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: I do not say no one knows. We do not know.


John George Diefenbaker: Very well; these two ships passed out of sight, and no one knows where they are. Therefore my submission, by way of a suggestion to the Prime Minister, is that once the security was reduced to the extent of two of the nine ships, there was then actually such a default as would permit the seizure of those ships when in the port of Hong Kong. Aside from carrying communists and potential war materials to China, the Prime Minister admits that these ships are being used in a way which might put Canada in a very difficult position internationally if they were fired upon. That being so, I suggest to the Prime Minister that when these ships come into the port of Hong Kong, there having been, as between the Ming Sung company and the other party to the contract, the government of Canada, such a default as would permit seizure, that seizure should be carried out. After all, the security was nine ships. Today it is seven. No one knows where the other two are. Certainly such seizure could not possibly cause any international repercussions that could be foreseen at the moment, for after all the Ming Sung company specifically asked that its ships should fly the Canadian flag.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not want to get into any discussion with my hon. and learned friend on a matter of law, but there is the practical consideration that if these ships are not used in the trade for which

they were built there is practically no other kind of trade for which they could be used. At least that was the impression gained before this matter was gone into fully in the house on April 7, 1949. It was felt that if the Chinese owners did not take them they would be of very little value as marketable articles, and I would assume that would be so even if we were to seize and take possession of the seven whose whereabouts are known to us.


John George Diefenbaker: Had the two ships disappeared by 1949?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I would not like to answer that question.


John George Diefenbaker: After all, the money consideration is small compared to the national interest.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Evidently the two ships had disappeared before May, 1950, because in that month we were dealing with only seven, and there were only seven for which a change of registry was being sought by the owners.


Gordon Graydon: It may be that, as the Prime Minister says, the ships could not be used for any other kind of trade; but it would seem to me that the amount involved is not worth the risk this government is taking of running into trouble in the Far East. I hope the Prime Minister and the government are seriously considering that point. If as the hon. member for Lake Centre, with his wide knowledge of the law, indicates, these ships are in the position that default has occurred, giving the government the right of seizure, then it would seem to me the government is taking a pretty serious responsibility by continuing to permit these ships to ply their trade between these ports.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not want to get into any legal argument, but I point out to the hon. member for Peel and the hon. member for Lake Centre that in May, 1950, a new debtor was substituted for the former debtor, and that new debtor assumed the debt with the transfer to it of seven ships, not nine. So the matter would have to be looked at from many angles. I can assure the hon. member for Peel that the question of whether the amount involved is worth the risk, not of becoming involved internationally but of being looked upon in the international press as having been involved, has been carefully considered and will not be lost sight of. The hon. member for Peel knows how careful the Secretary of State for External Affairs is about these matters, and I can assure him that this is by no means a closed book.
Supply-External Affairs


Gordon Graydon: I do not mind telling the Prime Minister this thing worries me. I am concerned about it, and I imagine that concern is shared by pretty well all hon. members of the house. I am raising the question for no other reason than that. It does seem to me the risk is rather great, and I feel the government should take what steps it can, as quickly as possible, to see that the risk is reduced.


John George Diefenbaker: I have one other question arising out of a news item appearing in The Ensign. My distinguished fellow townsman, Hon. T. C. Davis, the ambassador to Germany, returned to Canada a week or so ago, and this magazine refers to the fact that he went to Montreal in order to consult with the Canadian members of the Ming Sung company. Can the Prime Minister say whether or not he did so with the knowledge of the government, and whether or not he had any official status in any communications he may have had with the Canadian members of that company?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: None whatsoever to my knowledge, Mr. Chairman. I am afraid that The Ensign is sometimes speculative in its stories. I have not seen the last issue, but I was told that it contained a story about an interview with me by a delegation from Montreal which, if the story is as it was reported to me, does not look very much like what actually took place. I heard that Mr. T. C. Davis had come back to Canada on personal business. I do not know whether he was here in Ottawa. I think he went direct from Montreal to the west.


Mr. Casselman:: He was here.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I did not see him; but, as a matter of fact, I was told by my son, who happened to meet him at the airport and who had some conversation with him there, that he said he was back here on personal business and that he was going right out to the west.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Terminable services-
68S. To provide for the purchase and transportation to Yugoslavia of relief supplies, $45,000.
Jean Lesage: This morning the hon. member for Queens asked me a question about musicology. The word is in the dictionary. It may be found in the second volume of Webster's new international dictionary of the English language, second edition, unabridged, 1946. Musicology is there defined as follows:
Musicology: music as a branch of knowledge or field of investigation, especially historical study of musical documents. Investigation of sources, gathering and organization of neglected data, etc.

Supply-External Affairs
I would say that my friend the hon. member for Queens could be classified as a musician but not as a musicologist. He could be classified as a musician because of his musical voice.


Gordon Graydon: The hon. member does not know whether he is a musicologist or not. He might be.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Joseph-Alfred Dion: Item 322.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, it was my understanding that, following the conclusion of the estimates of the Department of External Affairs, we were going back directly to those of the Department of National Revenue, the discussion of which was interrupted at one o'clock.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: These are the estimates of the Prime Minister's office, and as the Prime Minister was here I thought we might take them.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not want to have any priority over anyone nor to interfere in any way with what may have been the implied arrangement about the order of procedure.


Jean Lesage: There was no such arrangement.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think that at this stage we should deal with matters still to be dealt with in the order which may be most convenient to hon. gentlemen on the other side of the house. I am going to be here as long as the House of Commons is sitting, and I will be available at any time that it suits the convenience of hon. members.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister is here, I believe that it would be convenient-


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Oh, no. I would suggest that the committee go on with the things that it was arranged should be discussed now. There may be some matters about which hon. members want quite a lot of information, and it may be that they do not feel they will require much information about my items; they will probably be better pleased to deal now with those matters with which the committee was dealing at one o'clock.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: I was not here at one
o'clock.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think, Mr. Chairman, that you had better treat all the items concerning the Prime Minister's office as standing, and that the committee should deal with such other matters as are of interest to hon. members.


[Stage Direction]
Taxation division-
314. General administration, $1,530,206.
Mr. Nowlan:: When the committee rose at one o'clock we were dealing with the item of administration in respect of the taxation division; and I think various members were competing for the honour of having income tax inspectors visit rural constituencies. In order that there may be no misunderstanding, may I say that there are relatively as many income tax inspectors visiting in the east as in the west. I know that in my own constituency we would feel that we have a monopoly in that regard. But that is not the matter that I wish to bring to the minister's attention. There are two matters that I should like to draw to his attention. One of them is more or less national in scope, covering various parts of Canada, and one is something which I presume is simply local affecting my own constituency.
In December of last year, according to returns filed, the pay and allowances of the armed forces were increased. As to pay, of course no question can be raised. However, as to the increased allowances, I understand the matter is dealt with in two ways. Those members of the armed forces who were living in private homes-in other words, who were living away from the stations or the bases- received; the allowances in cash. Those who were living on the bases, in homes which have been built by the Department of National Defence, did not receive the increased cash allowances. Their rentals or charges-call them what you will-for those homes were increased by the exact amount of the increase in their allowances. The net result was this. I have the table, but it is already on Hansard, and we will not take time to put it on record again. If a man received an increase in allowances of $10, a corresponding charge was made against him for rental. The net result was that he of course received no additional money whatsoever. Yet the Department of National Revenue has assessed him for income tax on this increased allowance. The net result, of course, is that there are thousands of members of the armed forces resident in Canada who, from a financial standpoint, are worse off after they received the allowance than they were before. What I mean is that the allowance was taken by the Department of National Defence as rental and yet the Department of National Revenue charged them income tax on those allowances.
The theory, of course, was that possibly private rentals were going up and if the man was living in a private home for which he had

been paying rent, he would have to use that increased allowance to pay the rent. That may have been true in some cases but as a matter of fact, I know of cases in my own constituency where we happen to have based the army, the air force and the navy, where men of all three arms of the service were paying less rental privately than they were being charged on the base or in the camp, as the case might be, and having received the allowance, they made by it; whereas many in the camp or the base have had their rentals increased and they were charged income tax thereon. I would not say that I have received protests from members of the armed forces because, of course, members of the armed forces are not in touch with members of parliament, and should not be. Nevertheless, I think it is a fair statement to make that the members of the armed forces feel that this action has been rather unfair in that there has been publicity given to the fact that their allowances have been increased whereas, as a matter of fact, they are worse off financially now than they were before. I do not know whether this matter has been brought to the attention of the minister previously, but I would suggest that he should give it careful consideration, and that where these increased charges are made for homes, deductions should not be made at the same time for income tax purposes.
The other matter to which I wish to draw the minister's attention is probably a purely local one, because it probably does not apply in other constituencies in Canada. As hon. members of the committee know-and as a matter of fact, there is an item in the estimates for it-this government and other governments have made payments for the pulling out of apple trees owned by fruit growers in the Annapolis valley. I have not checked these facts myself, and I am speaking now entirely from hearsay. The other matter to which I directed the minister's attention I have knowledge of because I have checked the records. I am informed that farmers in the valley have been assessed tax on moneys received for the pulling out of these trees; in other words, it has been treated as income. Well, I am quite sure that it has never been brought to the minister's attention, but I cannot believe that any responsible officer here would treat money received for the pulling of fruit trees as income, when, as a matter of fact, it is a very small compensation for the loss these farmers have suffered through having to destroy these trees. If you own mining stock, or even Canadian Pacific Railway stock, you are allowed depreciation. You are
Supply-National Revenue allowed depreciation on all sorts of assets. Here are farmers whose whole orchards have been destroyed, have been pulled out. I am told by responsible farmers, and I believe it, that local officials of the department have been treating this money as income. I simply bring it to the minister's attention. I do not expect that he can deal with it definitely this afternoon; but I am stating that as a matter of elementary law, in no way, shape or form can that money be considered as income. I am quite certain that, having brought it to the attention of the department, they will see that in future no further assessments are made in that particular form with respect to money which is simply a small capital payment which goes toward recompensing these farmers for capital assets that have been destroyed.


James Joseph McCann: With respect to the two questions raised by the hon. member for Anna-polis-Kings, while I am not familiar with the details-one is a local question and the other is a general one-the general practice with reference to pay and allowances is that a man in the defence forces is assessed as having received two-thirds of the benefits which he has actually received. The other question is more a question of law than of policy. If a farmer, for the purpose of replenishing, we might say, his orchards, gets the benefit with reference to the number of trees that are pulled out, that is on the credit side of his account; but he is able to deduct from that whatever expenses there would be in connection with the planting of those trees.


George Clyde Nowlan: Well-


James Joseph McCann: However, I may say that I confess it is a matter that I am not entirely familiar with. It will be investigated and brought to the attention of the officials in the district in which it is operating.


George Clyde Nowlan: The cases which I have
brought to the minister's attention have been brought to my attention, and they were balance sheet cases where the cash received for them was considered assets, but no allowance has been made or any deductions whatsoever. I am sure if it were investigated the minister would agree with me.


John George Diefenbaker: Before the noon adjournment I asked a question which had to do with an official of the department who received a salary of $8,000 a year, I think, and who retired at an early age. The question I asked was: How many years has he been in the service? What is his age? What pension is he going to receive as a result of his retirement?

Supply-National Revenue


James Joseph McCann: The gentleman in question is aged 52 years; he has been in the service 19 years and 3 months. He was retired at his own request on the abolition of his position, and his pension is $2,027.27 a year.


John George Diefenbaker: I am interested in asking this question. Is it customary for a person under 65 to be able to retire and receive so substantial a pension? Is that a customary performance, or was this an unusual one?


James Joseph McCann: It is provided for under the law. I would not say it is usual, but when one makes a request to retire and wants to go into another line of business and the position is abolished, what other course is the department to take?


John George Diefenbaker: A very easy way out.


Mr. Gillis:: I want to get something straightened out in my own mind. In listening to the discussion this morning on this difference between the number of assessors in Saskatchewan as against Quebec-74 in Saskatchewan and only 23 in Quebec-this thought came to my mind. Anyone reading the record would assume that there is discrimination somewhere. I want to ask this question. Does the fact that Quebec is a large industrial province, in which a great percentage of the tax is deducted at the source, mean that in that province it is not necessary to appoint the same number of assessors as in a province where the tax is not deducted at the source and the assessor must go out to assess? The same is true of Ontario. Can the minister put on the record on a percentage basis the tax deducted at the source as between province and province? I mean npw the income tax on salaries, employees and so forth. I believe if that were put on the record it would explain the reason why a province that is straight rural, where it is necessary to go out and make the assessment, requires a larger number of assessors than a province that is practically wholly industrial and where the tax is deducted at the source, which means it is not necessary to have assessors in the field.


James Joseph McCann: The figures that I gave this morning were in connection with farm assessments. The number of assessors in any district bears a relationship to the work that has to be done, and we base the work that has to be done pretty much upon the revenues of that particular district office. For instance, the revenue at Toronto last year was $386 million, Montreal a little greater, $388 million, Calgary, $42 million, and so on all down the line.


Major James William Coldwell: Did the minister say that the number of assessors was based on the revenue of the office?


James Joseph McCann: No; it is based upon the work that is done; but a fair indication of the work to be done is the amount of money that is collected.


Major James William Coldwell: Can the minister tell us how many farmers there are in Quebec and how many in Saskatchewan?


James Joseph McCann: Farm population?


Major James William Coldwell: Yes.


James Joseph McCann: That would be in the census returns. I suppose the hon. member for Cape Breton South would be interested in this. In Halifax last year the collections were $25,086,212, but his point is well taken.


Major James William Coldwell: How many farmers are there in the two provinces?


James Joseph McCann: Where?


Major James William Coldwell: Quebec and Saskatchewan.


James Joseph McCann: I do not know. I have not a record of the number of farmers. We can give you the record, and I read it this morning, of the number of farm returns and the number of assessable returns, but I cannot tell you what the farm population of each province is.


John George Diefenbaker: I can understand the difference, and I am not here to help out the minister, although he is being more than fair and very reasonable. I can understand that in Ontario and Quebec with the smaller farms and the larger farms in the west there would be a difference. I am not dealing with it on that basis. I am not dealing with it on the basis of one province or another, but I ask why it is that we in Saskatchewan are singled out for such special meticulously careful examination of our farms? They are receiving attention that indicates that it is not merely an involuntary movement. The minister has stated that great numbers of our farmers in Saskatchewan make mistakes in their returns. That surprises me, because we do feel that in our province-and I am speaking as the representative of an agricultural constituency-more than our share of examination is being made. As the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar pointed out, it is easy to find the farm income in Saskatchewan. With the exception of a small area, cattle production is small. Our production is of wheat, oats and barley, and our farmers cannot sell a bushel without accounting for it.
Government inspectors go to the wheat board. They go to the grain companies. They say, "Let us have your records." That being so, instead of their requiring more inspectors and more intelligence officers I should think they would not require such a large number. I am not interested in what happens in this
fMr. Diefenbaker.]

respect in the other provinces. I can understand that the circumstances are different; but it is difficult for our farmers in the western provinces to understand why, if the figures are as the minister has given them, we in the three western provinces are paying $16 million out of $19 million paid for farm income. That looks as if we are receiving just a little bit more attention than we feel we deserve.


James Joseph McCann: The hon. member should correct that figure. He has made a mistake when he says that those provinces are paying $16 million out of $19 million. The figure is $6 million.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not hear that.


James Joseph McCann: The figure I gave this morning was that you are paying $6 million out of $19 million.


John George Diefenbaker: In which province?


James Joseph McCann: Saskatchewan.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister told us that $6 million was being paid in Calgary. He told us this morning that $6 million of the $19 million was being paid in Calgary.


James Joseph McCann: That is right.


John George Diefenbaker: Now he says-


James Joseph McCann: In Saskatoon it is $3 million.


John George Diefenbaker: In Saskatoon $3 million; that makes $9 million.


James Joseph McCann: Regina, $3 million.


John George Diefenbaker: That is $12 million. What about Winnipeg?


James Joseph McCann: We were in Saskatchewan.


John George Diefenbaker: No, we were taking the three western provinces. I mentioned that.


James Joseph McCann: Winnipeg was $1,933,000.


John George Diefenbaker: All right. I gave the figure roughly at $16 million. If I am in error, it is just an error in totalling. Certainly it is far more than $6 million, because the minister told us $6 million came out of Calgary alone.


James Joseph McCann: I thought you were referring to Calgary.


John George Diefenbaker: That is just the point. We do not mind paying income tax, nor do the farmers mind doing it; but they would like to know why farm income in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba is paying a disproportionate amount. If one takes the total farm income in Ontario, and the income tax thereon, and then takes the farm income of Saskatchewan and puts alongside it the income tax, one will see that it is not fair.
Supply-National Revenue All our farmers ask is that there be complete fairness. They find it difficult to understand why they are paying as much as they do, and still enjoy the luxury of such an excessive number of intelligence officers. That is what we cannot understand and why I asked the minister the question this morning.


Major James William Coldwell: Why do we "enjoy" such a large number of intelligence officers. There are 322 of those officers in the country, and half of them, or 161, are in the three prairie provinces.


James Joseph McCann: No, not intelligence officers- farm assessors. I gave the intelligence officers for the whole country, and pointed out that there were 75 of them, with 35 in Montreal. I also gave the number of farm assessors.
Then, in answer to what was said by the hon. member for Lake Centre: I have heard it stated so often as to what a great province Saskatchewan is in the export of hogs and in the manufacture of butter and cheese. The only place where we are able to get exact returns is from the wheat board in connection with wheat, oats and barley.


John George Diefenbaker: That is right, because that is the major portion of our production.


James Joseph McCann: The great part of it-but not all of it.


Robert Fair: Perhaps this is an indication of what is going on in the other provinces where their production is not being sold through boards. It is being sold locally, perhaps from neighbour to neighbour, and for that reason the government is not collecting the tax to which it is entitled. The result is that they are imposing upon those from whom they can collect the tax every cent they can collect.
Then I suggest consideration should be given to easing the tax burden on farmers. If that were done I believe there would be higher production. If a low rate of taxation were levied I believe the government would collect just as much, and perhaps more, while at the same time it would increase production.
In one of the latter war years Canada exported to Great Britain over 700 million pounds of bacon. The farmers were subjected to heavy taxation from July 1, 1942, but they were not aware of that taxation until after the war was over, in January, 1946. Had the farmers known that they were to be taxed on the production of 1941 or 1942 I think they would not have produced as much. The result was that they had to turn thousands and thousands of dollars over to the government after the war was over, moneys which should have been collected during the war years.

Supply-National Revenue
The result is that many of them have decided they are not going to work overtime and give the profits to the government. Then the wheat steal is another matter of government policy which must be changed. The payment of $65 million has been misrepresented, and I believe the people will have to get wise to the fact that the farmers of western Canada are still millions and millions of dollars out of pocket.


James Joseph McCann: Just to put the record straight, and to set out a figure which should be placed alongside what has been said by the hon. member: Out of a total collection of taxes of $1,537 million in 1950-51, 11-10 per cent came from the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.


Major James William Coldwell: The corporations are in Toronto and they pay taxes there on money they collect from everybody else.


Robert Fair: The figures given by the minister represent only the direct taxation. If we had the figure for indirect taxation as it affects the farmers of the three prairie provinces we would have an entirely different picture. It is too bad we cannot have the facts concerning our whole taxation program.


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: There seems to be an air of mystery as to why Ontario farmers sometimes do not pay as much taxation as those in the western provinces. The truth of the matter is that by the time the eastern farmer pays for prairie farm rehabilitation and prairie farm assistance, which is made necessary if it is too wet or too dry or something else, away goes his money. What I rose to say was that if we pay out $65 million or $165 million the government just takes it away again and they do not need to feel sad over it.
I should like to raise the question of basic herds. One reason why the Ontario farmer is not able to pay income tax is that every once in a while the government makes a levy on the farmer when he has a sale and the result is that he is not in position very often to pay income tax. A farmer and his wife will work for many years and decide to sell out. The government says arbitrarily that one-third or one-half of their herd of dairy cows which produced the milk they sold is income and not a return of capital. They would not have been able to produce butter or cheese or milk for the city unless they had their dairy cows. That was their capital.
It may be different with the beef producer cn the western plains, but that is the condition facing the dairy producer in eastern Canada. The regulations provide that thirty days prior to a sale he must have established the fact that he had a basic herd. Not all


farmers having sales are aware of that and sometimes they are penalized quite heavily. I think it would be just as easy to establish this at the time of the sale. It could be decided how many head of dairy cows a farmer had in any one of five years because there would be records of his sales of milk or cheese or whatever it might be. I mentioned this before and I hope the minister is going to correct this situation. At that time I termed it a legal form of robbery, and that is all it is.


James Joseph McCann: Probably the hon. member
for Middlesex East was not in the chamber this morning when I made my opening statement because I made reference to the matter he brings up. If he reads my statement he will see that an attempt was made to answer the question but his further remarks will be given consideration.


Robert Fair: The hon. member for Middlesex East has referred to the fact that the Ontario farmer has had to help pay for the rehabilitation program in the west and this gives me an opportunity to tell him that we have already paid the farmers who do not grow grain something like $165 million by way of subsidies. We have supplied them with cheap feed from which they can make larger profits on the hogs and cattle they market.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I had no intention of getting
into an argument between farmers in one section of the country and farmers in another section, but I do want to tell the minister that if he continues to impose income taxes upon the farmers the people in the cities are going to starve to death. They are not going to get the food they need if our farmers are assessed income tax on a basis of a ten, twelve or sometimes fifteen hour day instead of on the basis of an eight hour day. I ran a dairy farm for twelve years and I never was in bed after five in the morning and I never stayed out of bed after ten o'clock at night. If you are going to assess the farmers with income tax on the basis of these long hours you are going to decrease production to the point where the people in the city are going to be starved out. They will have to go back to the farms again.


Major James William Coldwell: Just a word or two in this connection-


James Joseph McCann: On a point of order. This
discussion is not in order. I suggest that if the farmers of Canada want to get anywhere they had better stick together instead of starting to fight. This department is purely administrative. Any representations with reference to policy had better be made

to the Department of Finance at the time the budget is being presented. We are simply trying to do a job honestly and faithfully without discrimination as between the different parts of the country.


Major James William Coldwell: I think that is true. This
is an administrative department but it can make recommendations to the Department of Finance in an effort to have the administration carried out more fairly. One reason why the farmer's income is not enough is that it is the income of a family rather than the income of an individual and some allowance should be made.


Mr. Blackmore:: I should like to associate
myself with those who have expressed disapproval of the income tax policy with respect to farmers. It is very easy to go too far and kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Apparently that thought has not dawned on the proper people. I do not know whether it is the Minister of National Revenue and his department, or some other department that should be told this, but I think the minister is just about as good a man as any to be told what is happening. If they go on disregarding the farmer they will find that they have destroyed the people who produce the bread and butter. That is what will happen if you destroy morale and the desire to do this hard work from five o'clock in the morning until ten o'clock at night. Once that is destroyed you have destroyed something that cannot be restored.
I hope the minister will report this with solemn emphasis to the members of the cabinet before it is too late. I received a letter today from a man in Lincoln county, Ontario, indicating the damage which has been done by the income tax and other measures of this government. The result has been to seriously impair the morale of our farmers and their desire to stay on the land. They are beginning to say, "What is the use? Let us go to the city and have a good time with the rest of the folk." Once that attitude develops among our farmers and their children the results will not be good for this country.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Income tax appeal board-
327. Administration expenses. $62,286.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to draw to the minister's attention certain comments in a recent judgment of the income tax appeal board. This case was heard in camera and is referred to as No. 18. It is interesting to note that the appellant, who is a woman, appeared for herself after finding unexpectedly at the last moment that an accountant who was to be there to help her
Supply-National Revenue plead her case was not available. She seems to have done a good job for herself. Let me associate myself with what has been said about the excellent work done in the department. I noted with interest what the minister said about the efficient way in which taxes are being collected, and we all approve of that but there is another side to this. Sometimes diligent but not too discriminatory officials may, unintentionally no doubt, cause an injustice. I should like to read briefly from the dissenting judgment of Mr. Fisher. The fact that it is a dissenting judgment I submit does not affect the value of what Mr. Fisher had to say about the way in which this particular case was handled by the officials. I quote from his judgment as follows:
It has been stated publicly in the past, and I have no doubt it is still the policy of the department, that the taxation division has no desire to collect one cent of income tax which is not justly due under the terms of the taxing act; on the other hand, it does intend to collect every dollar of tax which is justly due in accordance with the provisions of the legislation as enacted by parliament. Believing that this is still the policy of the taxation officials, it would appear that more care should be taken in the investigations made by the district offices in connection with the surrounding facts when an appeal is lodged by a taxpayer than would appear to have been the case in the present appeal.
Then I read from the previous part of the judgment as follows:
. . . surely when an appeal is filed by a taxpayer, the facts in connection with the taxpayer's circumstances and all the facts in connection with the subject matter under appeal should have been investigated by the district office. I am quite certain that this was not done in this case; and probably, if it had been done, the minister or his officials would have adjusted the assessment appealed against, not only with regard to the appellant's claim for a $1,500 exemption, but also with respect to the inclusion of the $240 as part of her taxable income.
The comment I wish to add is that a statement of this kind coming from a responsible judicial official is, I think, something that should not be disregarded. We are well aware that a very large percentage of the tax-paying public are not ready to undertake appeals. This woman must have been a rather unusual woman to press the matter as she did. I would be interested to hear what the minister has to say.


James Joseph McCann: I do not know that I am
any more enlightened about the case than the hon. member for Greenwood, and perhaps not as well. I have not seen the decision. I think it was a question as to whether the taxpayer or the officials in the district office were right, and for that reason it went to the appeal board. That is one reason for which the appeal board is set up. Far be it from me to attempt to comment

Supply-National Revenue at this stage upon the judgment or upon the views of the member of the board who dissented from that judgment. It is a matter that we will have to study, but to my mind it shows one of the very important uses of the income tax appeal board, that the taxpayer has the right, where there is a difference of opinion between him and the officers in the district or head office, to make an appeal to an impartial board.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I agree with that, of course, and I do not want to go into the merits of the case. I took pains to point out that there had been a dissenting opinion, but what I draw the minister's attention to has nothing to do with legal points, and I will read it again. What Mr. Fisher says is: ... all the facts in connection with the subject matter under appeal should have been investigated by the district office.
Then he adds:
I am quite certain that this was not done in this case.
In other words, what he is saying is that if enough trouble had been taken at the lower level the matter probably would not have had to go higher. I think there is this to be said, that the mere fact there is an appeal board should not in any way lessen the sense of responsibility of the officials to get all the information which, according to the statement in this case, they did not get.


James Joseph McCann: I think the hon. member
should bear in mind that is the judgment of one man, and it is the dissenting judgment.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No, it is
not.


James Joseph McCann: It is not the dissenting
opinion?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No, it is not, of course not. I would not read the dissenting opinion.


James Joseph McCann: What I meant to say was
that there is a dissenting opinion, that it was not a unanimous opinion.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is true enough. All I am referring to is this opinion, and I do not think you will find anything in the dissenting judgment, which is on a question of law, that affects the statement I have read.


Mr. Haifield:: I should like to ask the
minister whether there is a regulation that after the assessment is made a person has to pay the full tax before he can make an appeal. Is there any regulation to that effect?


James Joseph McCann: The answer is that the fact
that there is an appeal does not mean that he does not have to pay the tax, but if he wins the appeal he immediately gets a refund.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Why does he have to pay
the full assessment before he can make an appeal? When a man is sentenced to hang and appeals his case you do not hang him first before you hear the appeal.


James Joseph McCann: It is quite true that would
not work very well, but it so happens that this is in the Income Tax Act.


Heber Harold Hatfield: It works the same way.


Gordon Graydon: With respect to the income
tax appeal board, what is the policy governing the board's operations so far as making public in their judgments the names of those who have appealed is concerned? I ask that question because some time ago we had certain experiences with Mr. A, Mr. B, and Mr. X. What governs the board with respect to the A's, the B's and the X's? I think some people would rather like to be in the favoured categories of A's, B's or X's. Some of them do not seem to have the same privilege. I am only curious about it. I am not being particularly critical, but it seems to me that under our law everybody is the same, and I do not know that there is any special reason why people should go under other than their own names. It looks like a policy of aliases. If publicity is going to be given to judgments of the board, I think everybody ought to be treated equally, whether he happens to be a judge or a farmer. I do not think that makes any difference. If one were going to make a choice, I think perhaps one might be justified in giving the farmer the advantage of being called Mr. A, B, or X.


James Joseph McCann: I would refer the hon. member, who is a lawyer, to section 82 (2) of the Income Tax Act which reads:
An appeal may, in the discretion of the board, the chairman, the assistant chairman or hearing officer, as the case may be, be heard in camera or in public unless the appellant requests that it be heard in camera in which case it shall be so heard.
These cases are held in camera at the request of the appellant or at the discretion of the chairman, and it is usually at the request of the appellant.


Gordon Graydon: In other words, the appellant can always ask the board to be heard in camera.


James Joseph McCann: Yes.


Gordon Graydon: And in that event his name does not appear in the press and is not referred to in the judgment?


James Joseph McCann: That is right.


Gordon Graydon: Does the board caution appellants with respect to that matter when they come before it? I fancy there would not be a single person who would choose to be heard in public. I am just wondering why there is so much publicity if that choice is made known to the appellant.


James Joseph McCann: Most appellants are represented by counsel, and prior to coming before the appeal board they make themselves acquainted with the law.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-
International shortwave broadcasting station-
53. Maintenance and operation including authority to credit to the appropriation revenue from rental of facilities in Radio Canada building to an amount of $100,000 and to re-expend it for the purposes of the international service, $1,709,675.
Donald Methuen Fleming: There are five items in the estimates relating to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Items 53, 54 and 671 relate to the international shortwave service. Item 564 is the item of $1,500,000 to assist in the development of television, and item 670 is also an item of $1,500,000 constituting a grant to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I suggest that it will assist-


Joseph-Alfred Dion: They will be called one after the other.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was going to suggest that it would save time if in our discussion we might deal with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in general, without being held down to one item at a time. I think we will avoid duplication of discussion in that way.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Is that satisfactory?


Alphonse Fournier: Does that mean we are taking the five items at the same time, and the general discussion will be on all five?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think if the discussion is on the first item called, which is item 53, it will relate to the C.B.C. international shortwave service; but if we may touch upon the other items we will shorten the discussion. Otherwise there will be a great deal of overlapping and duplication of discussion.


Alphonse Fournier: Agreed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I make this suggestion in the hope of expediting the discussion.


James Joseph McCann: Agreed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There are some aspects of several of these items that are normal in character, though questions will be asked in regard to the amounts requested; but with respect to at least one, if not two, of 80709-312
Supply-National Revenue these items there are questions of departure from the principles that have been in effect hitherto governing the provision by parliament of moneys for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Two of these items are to be found in the supplementary estimates, 670 and 671. Item 671 is simply an addition to the provision made for the international shortwave broadcasting station, but item 670 raises important questions of a rather novel nature. That is the item which comes to us following the announcement by the Prime Minister in the house ten days ago that out of the report of the Massey royal commission on arts, letters and sciences, the government proposes to deal with two matters at the present session. This is one of those two matters. May I say at once that with respect to the other matter arising out of the commission report, namely assistance to the universities of this country, I am sure there will be unanimous support in this house.
Item 670 presents this difficulty. The report of the Massey commission is a document of very great importance, and I do not think we will do justice to the importance of that report or of the field assigned to that royal commission for study if an attempt is made to break it up for study piecemeal. I submit there should be an attempt on the part of parliament to view the report as a whole; and at an appropriate stage of the proceedings in the fall session I should think the government would make provision for a debate on the report in general. That in turn, in my submission, should be followed as far as the chapters of the report concerning radio broadcasting and television are concerned by a reference of those chapters to a special committee on radio broadcasting.
In my view it is regrettable that on this final day of this part of the session we should be asked to provide a sum of money which raises some of the fundamental questions dealt with in the report of the royal commission, in effect compelling us to take out some of the chapters of that report and deal with them in piecemeal fashion. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, even those chapters are not before us in their entirety. This item purports to chop off a portion of the recommendations of the royal commission even out of those special chapters to which I have referred. I cannot imagine a more unsatisfactory way of approaching consideration of the important and far-reaching report of the Massey commission. I do not think this method does justice to the report or to the labours of the commissioners.
I said a question of principle was raised here. That question involves policy on the part of parliament and its relations with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I believe

Supply-National Revenue the special committee on radio broadcasting should be set up at the earliest possible date in the fall session, and I suggest to the minister that an item such as 670 could well wait until the fall and until a special committee has been appointed, has studied the report and heard representations concerning it.
It must be borne in mind that the royal commission was not unanimous in its recommendations with respect to the control and operation of radio broadcasting and television. A very weighty minority report was submitted by a distinguished member of the royal commission, Dr. Arthur Surveyer of Montreal, and I should think a parliamentary committee would wish to study the reasons which impelled Dr. Surveyer to write that report. I should think also that such a committee would wish also to hear the views of those likely to be affected by any course which will be involved in the implementation of the recommendations of the majority of that commission.
In that connection we should bear in mind that the last time we had a special committee of this house on radio broadcasting was during the regular session of 1950, and that in turn was the first since 1947. The 1950 committee did not attempt a complete and comprehensive survey of the field of broadcasting. At that time the Massey commission was sitting, and it was felt by all members of the committee that at that stage there was no point in undertaking to duplicate the work of the commission, and, therefore, that the sensible course was to await the report of the commission. Then presumably the committee would be reappointed and invited to study the recommendations contained in the report, and to hear those who wished to make representations in regard thereto. At that time also it was expected that the report of the royal commission would be received very shortly. As a matter of fact during the last debate on radio broadcasting in this house, held on June 28, 1950, at page 4319 of Hansard for that date the Minister of National Revenue said: "I feel that sometime this fall the commission will bring in a report." Therefore the special committee did not attempt to study the system of control and regulation in the field of broadcasting.
The items under discussion, principally 670, do not raise questions as to all the recommendations contained in the report of the royal commission. Nevertheless it seems to me this vote goes to the root of some of the most important recommendations, and I urge the minister that this item should not be proceeded with now but might very well

wait until the fall, when there will be opportunity for a committee to sit and review the recommendations contained in the report. Those who will be affected by many of those recommendations, namely the operators of private broadcasting stations, have not been heard by a committee of the house since 1947. They were not invited to come before the 1950 committee because the committee decided to keep out of that field and narrow its studies down to some other matters principally affecting the immediate financial problem of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. So much, sir, for questions of policy involved in a vote on these items, principally No. 670. I think that kind of decision should be postponed, and that we should not be biting this off piecemeal.
I now turn to the question of finance, and I am trying to make my remarks brief, having regard to the fact that we are all under some pressure at this late stage of the session. The amount that is mentioned in item No. 670, and which is very briefly described, is the sum of $1,500,000 to provide for an interim grant to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation pending amendment of the Canadian Broadcasting Act. Presumably that refers to an amendment that is to come before the fall session of the house; and in providing this sum in contemplation of an amendment that we do not know anything about as yet-and there is not a member of the house apart from the government who knows what is to be the principle or the effect of that amendment-it seems to me that we are being invited as a house to commit ourselves in advance to a principle, and are being invited to take a leap in the dark.
I would ask you to note, sir, if you will, that this item uses the expression "interim grant". I ask you to note particularly the word "grant". This is a new departure. Hitherto the funds placed by parliament at the disposal of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for capital purposes have been by way of loan. Section 17 of the Canadian Broadcasting Act so stipulates. That rule has been followed for years. Now, in the dark, we are being invited to make a grant. It is no longer a loan, but is a grant. We are being invited to make an outright grant of $1,500,000. We are invited to commit ourselves in that way to a departure in principle from the scheme that has prevailed hitherto under the Canadian Broadcasting Act. I submit, sir, that if there is to be a departure of that kind it should be taken only after parliament has had the fullest opportunity of seeing the problem as a whole and of weighing all aspects of it, and after a special committee of

the house has made a detailed study of the problem, and has heard any who may wish to make submissions to it.
Presumably this grant is to be made to provide against the possibility of a deficit in the current operations of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Lacking any statement in the item itself we can only come to that conclusion. In passing, I must express my protest against items being put before parliament in this sketchy and nebulous form. We are simply left to guess at what is to be the purpose of the vote in the form of a grant of $1,500,000. Why does the item not spell out the particular purpose to which the money is to be devoted? Here we are being invited to legislate. This is one of those items which, in effect, put parliament in a position of legislating, notwithstanding the provisions of statutes and, in particular, section 17 of the Canadian Broadcasting Act.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is what the Prime Minister said he would put a stop to.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We thought an end had been put to that. That is what we hoped last year. But there is nothing in this item which stipulates the purpose for which the money is to be used. I can only conclude, Mr. Chairman -basing my conclusion on facts quite outside the terms of the estimates-that it is to assist the corporation in meeting a deficit in this year's operations. On that assumption-and on that assumption alone-may I offer a word or two concerning the financial position of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
I am sure that all hon. members of the committee are aware of the difficulties that the corporation has faced. Its costs have been rising. They have been rising quite rapidly, as was inevitable. The officials of the corporation told the committee that sat at the 1950 session that it was faced with the choice of making a curtailment in services or seeking new sources of revenue. In the fiscal year 1948-49 the corporation sustained a deficit of $43,000. That was not a cash deficit, because there is provision set up for depreciation in the balance sheet of the corporation. In the fiscal year 1949-50 the deficit was $243,000. As to the following fiscal year, we were told a year ago that the deficit was estimated at $962,000 at the beginning of the fiscal year. What we did last year, on the motion of the government, was to vote $650,000 as an advance to the corporation. I would ask that it be borne in mind that that was not a grant; it was an advance to the corporation which was designed to provide for the entire estimated 80709-3124
Supply-National Revenue deficit of the corporation for the fiscal year 1950-51, less the sum set up in the balance sheet for depreciation.
That was the first time that parliament had made a direct advance to meet a deficit on current operations. Up till that time the sums provided by parliament by way of loans had been available for capital purposes. If the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is to face deficits, how are those deficits to be met? That, sir, is a question of great importance. In the light of the recommendations of the Massey royal commission it is a question that is worthy of the best attention of parliament, and it is certainly worthy of the most intensive study on the part of a special committee of parliament. But we are being invited now to vote $1,500,000 for what purpose we know not.
We have had this year, in the house, no review of the finances of the corporation. We have had no review of its operations. We have not had any budget of the corporation laid before us. The report of the corporation for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1951, is not before us. It has not been received. I made inquiry at the distribution office as late as noon today to see if, by any chance, the report had been received there. But the report has not been received. The last report that the house has on the operations of the corporation is that for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1950-in other words, fifteen months ago. The report is normally dated about the middle of June, and I can only assume that printing has delayed the submission of the report to the house. But I emphasize again, sir, that in dealing with an important question, a substantial item involving departures from the principles that have been in effect hitherto, the committee has nothing before it of a budget for the corporation and has not before it any report for any period beyond a date fifteen months ago. I wish it to be noted that, in saying that, I am not being critical of the corporation, sir. Let me make that point quite clear. But I am citing these facts as reasons why parliament should not be asked, in these dying minutes of this session, to vote this sum involving, as it does, departures from the principles that have been in effect hitherto. This matter can be just as well dealt with in the fall. The vote of money can be provided then by parliament after it has made a thorough and comprehensive study of the whole matter.
As to ways in which any deficit of the C.B.C. is to be financed, might I make just this comment. I do not wish to launch into a debate on the report of the Massey commission for I do not think this is the time

Supply-National Revenue for it. But may I point out that the commission rejects one of the suggestions that the corporation made to it as to a way in which the deficit could be met. Mr. Dunton made it quite clear to the special committee that sat in the 1950 session that this was not necessarily the only means to which the corporation was committing itself in making the suggestion to the royal commission. It was a way indicated by him in giving testimony on behalf of the corporation before the royal commission as to the manner by which the deficit could be met, namely, by increasing the licence fee from $2.50 to $5. That has been wisely rejected, but I remind hon. members that in the estimates of the Department of Transport the house is already making a substantial contribution, in excess of $600,000, to the corporation by the expedient of collecting, without charge to the corporation, the present $2.50 licence fee.
The cost of that collection is, as I have said, over $600,000. The cost of collecting the fees actually is over 12 per cent on the average of the fees. This very high percentage of cost has been commented on more than once. It is also referred to in the report of the Massey royal commission at page 294.
One other item here is deserving of special mention, namely, item 564, a sum of $1,500,000 which is, you will notice, set out in some degree of detail, and in that respect provides a striking contrast with the nebulous and terse treatment of item 6V0. Here we have a lengthy description of the purpose to which the loan of $1,500,000 to the corporation is put. It reads:
Loans to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation repayable with interest at a rate to be fixed by the governor in council on such terms and conditions as the governor in council may determine and to be applied in payment of expenditures to cover capital costs of television installations and to support the development of the service. Such loans, with interest, shall be a charge on the revenues of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation next after the charge imposed under the provisions of section 17 of the Canadian Broadcasting Act, 1936.
There, sir, you have a clear statement as to the purposes to which this sum of $1,500,000 may be devoted. You have limits fixed as to the use to which this money can be put and you have also the clear proof that it is no departure in principle, but rather a recognition of the fact that it is to be subject to the provisions of section 17 of the act.
This subject of television, sir, Is an important subject in itself. Last year the house provided a loan of $4,500,000 to the corporation to permit it to embark upon extensive expenditures on installations of television stations, two in Montreal and one in Toronto, and at these stations to provide facilities for broadcasting television programs.

This subject of television is increasing in importance all the time, sir. The Massey royal commission estimated when it wrote its report that there are 25,000 television sets in Canada, and the prodigious rate of increase is reflected in statements issued by the dominion bureau of statistics in recent months as to sales. The daily bulletin of the dominion bureau of statistics of June 19 says this with respect to sales in the month of March of this year:
Producers' sales of television sets in the month totalled 5,428, more than five times as large as last year's March sales of 926, and the value at list prices rose to $3,250,663 from $391,735. In the January-March period, 13,757 units were sold at a value of $7,593,953 as compared with 2,445 at $1,009,104 in the same months last year.
Sir, these figures indicate the immensity of the problem and the prodigious rate at which the field of television is opening up in Canada. Here again, sir, in the report of the Massey commission we have an important and weighty minority report written by Dr. Arthur Surveyer. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that this vote of $1,500,000 is not so urgent that it could not wait until the fall session, until there has been an opportunity to review the whole subject and deal with it in a comprehensive and not just a piecemeal manner.
True, this item, 564, was inserted in the main estimates before the report of the Massey commission was received, but, sir, it seems to me that the terms of the report make it evident now that if we are to do justice to that report, and the important recommendations that it contains, this item ought, like the other item to which I have referred, No. 670, to await that comprehensive study which is not possible at this session, but will be possible, we trust, at the fall session of the house. In the meantime, this additional vote of $1,500,000 is simply apparently to be a further endorsement of the type of operation that the corporation announced previously.
We thought we were going to have actual Canadian television programs by September 1 of this year. Reports now indicate that there have been delays, and the corporation will not be able to commence its operation- until probably as late as next spring. In the meantime, private applicants for channels for the purpose of television broadcasting are simply being left in the air. These applications have been left in a frozen condition for the last 2J years. Action is required, Mr. Chairman, but action after we have seen the problem whole, and the committee is the only body that can do that. In the meantime we are committing ourselves in effect to the expansion of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

television program and we have no opportunity now of reviewing the whole report of the commission and of dealing with these other important aspects of the control and operation of television in Canada that are urgently crying for study and action. In that respect I refer particularly to these applications on the part of private applicants who have been waiting for 2J years for an opportunity to risk their own money in providing television in Canada, and have been delayed in doing so by the paternalistic attitude on the part of the corporation.
In conclusion, let me say again that departures in principle are involved in vote 670. A new path is being followed, and in advance of our having given in this house even superficial study to the report of the Massey royal commission. There is nothing so urgent about the item that it could not wait until the fall. Parliament can provide whatever money parliament at that time thinks it necessary to provide for the needs of the corporation during the whole fiscal year, because the fiscal year runs until March 31, 1952. Nobody is going to be prejudiced, I submit, Mr. Chairman, by allowing this matter to stand until parliament can deal with it in a proper, comprehensive and statesmanlike manner.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the item carry?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No. Is no
answer going to be made to what the hon. member for Eglinton said? Was there no substance of any kind in it? Was there no argument contained in it? Was it all unreasonable?


James Joseph McCann: I am giving the hon. gentleman or any other hon. members an opportunity to present their case rather than answer them separately. Whatever is the will of the committee I am quite prepared to do. As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Eglinton was in such a hurry to start the debate that I did not have the opportunity of making any statement with reference to the matters that would come under discussion.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Just a minute; I wish to make this comment, that if I had not stood up, it would have been passed, because the chairman was saying "carried".


James Joseph McCann: I am willing to follow the wish of the house in this connection.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: When no one rises I must say that it is carried.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am pointing out that the minister was not on his feet. It was I who was on my feet, and it would have been carried if I had not risen.
Supply-National Revenue


Donald Methuen Fleming: And when the minister says that I was in a great rush to have the floor, I would not have spoken first if he had risen to do so.


James Joseph McCann: I repudiate that suggestion entirely. It is too important a matter to be carried without discussion. There are many points we should discuss, and I am sorry it is so late in the session that it may not be possible to have as long a discussion as we might otherwise have. However, that is not my fault.
The hon. member for Eglinton has pointed out that this debate resolves itself pretty much into a matter of dealing with the C.B.C. national service, with the international service, and with television. As all hon. members are aware, this whole matter of broadcasting, whether it be sound broadcasting or video, has been the subject of debate, representations and a report by the Massey commission. That report was received only within the last ten days or two weeks. The hon. member for Eglinton has placed special stress on that report. I am sorry he saw fit to base his whole argument upon the minority report.
May I review briefly the subject matters he has taken up. I shall start with the national service, and the $1,500,000 by way of an interim grant to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, pending an amendment to the act. This is entirely an interim measure, and it is to enable the C.B.C. to meet its bills, pending decision in the fall with respect to legislation regarding revised revenue arrangements for the corporation. We understand that it is entirely different from a loan.
Let me say here that this is the first time in the history of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation when it has asked for a grant rather than for a loan. All financing of the C.B.C. has been done on the basis of loans which have been or will be repayable. The C.B.C. is the property of the radio listeners and licence payers of the Dominion of Canada rather than of the government of Canada; and it is for that purpose that the C.B.C. is responsible to parliament rather than to the government.
As hon. members understand, it is run entirely by a commission or a corporation which is independent of the government, and my position is that I report from the corporation to parliament and to the government. At the present time the corporation is in a strained financial position. This situation arises from the general increase in cost levels in Canada over the last twelve years. The corporation has been caught by these rising costs, while the basis of its revenue has remained unchanged.

Supply-National Revenue
The main part of the revenue of the corporation comes from receiver licence fees. The level has been, as hon. members know, $2.50; and that has not been changed since 1938. Meantime, as everyone knows, costs of operation of all kinds in Canada have risen greatly. It has been estitnated that costs of the corporation have more than doubled in the last twelve years. At the same time the rates on its main revenue have remained the same. Obviously no organization can continue to function with rising levels of expenditures and a stationary rate of income.
The C.B.C. has made its position clear on a number of occasions, particularly to parliamentary committees, and to the royal commission on national development in the arts, letters and sciences.
The hon. member for Eglinton complained that there has not been a meeting of the parliamentary committee on the C.B.C. for a long time. That is explained by the fact that this commission was sitting.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did not complain of that.


James Joseph McCann: The hon. member made that observation. He was within his rights, of course, in making it. I am simply repeating what he said. Until we received the report there did not appear to be anything gained by having the parliamentary committee.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Quite right.


James Joseph McCann: I think that is a fair statement of the position.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Quite right.


James Joseph McCann: But let us not forget that the C.B.C. and representatives of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, otherwise known as C.A.B., as well as the public generally from one end of Canada to the other, had the opportunity and did make representation as to their ideas with reference to broadcasting in general.
The government has been aware for some time of the need for some revised income arrangement for the corporation. Of course it wished to have the report of the royal commission first. We had hoped it might be possible to consider the matter and to put the new measures into effect so as to apply throughout the whole of this fiscal year, but that has not been possible.
The situation however is such that the corporation just has to have some additional funds to carry on during the coming months. The annual report of the corporation for the year 1950-51 is not yet available. I may say it has been submitted to the Auditor General, but has not yet received his signature, which it must receive before it goes into the hands of the printer. Preliminary figures

indicate however that the over-all deficit for last year will be something in the neighbourhood of $1,272,000 after depreciation.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is that the calendar year or the government year?


James Joseph McCann: That is the fiscal year, and that is after depreciation. The over-all operating deficit before depreciation, in the national sound service, without taking into account preliminary current expenditures on television, will be $913,000. Of this amount $650,000 was covered by a loan to the corporation approved by parliament last year. The remainder comes out of C.B.C. resources, thus further reducing the working capital.
During the year the corporation operated on the principle of maintaining services at current levels, and carrying out its commitments, but not of introducing extensions or improvements involving increased expenditures. That practice was laid down at the last meeting of the parliamentary committee. That last meeting examined the position with reference to finances, and recommended specifically that, pending consideration of a new revenue basis for the system, the corporation should be enabled to maintain its present standard of services. That was the recommendation of the committee.
The government extended a year ago a $650,000 loan based upon that recommendation to meet the deficit for the year ending 1951. The chief addition to the coverage of the system during the year was a station at Windsor, and that had been started some time previously.
Arrangements were also made for relay transmitters in points in northwestern Ontario and British Columbia where service was badly needed. Increasing costs to maintain services and meet commitments, however, led to the deficit I have mentioned.
This year the corporation again faces still higher costs with little expectation for higher revenues on the present basis. It has estimated that the gap between revenues on the current rate and expenditures necessary to maintain present services will be over $2 million. It would have been possible in theory to have met the situation by a reduction in its services. The reductions, however, would have been such that they would have changed the whole national broadcasting service as we know it now. It should be pointed out however that this is the first time that a straight grant of funds has been requested for the C.B.C. Up until last year the C.B.C. had met any deficit it had out of its own resources. Last year assistance was provided by means of a loan, which is still an obligation on the corporation. I think

it should be pointed out that under the broadcasting act the C.B.C. has been expected to build up its capital assets out of its surplus revenues. It has in fact operated up to this time on that basis.
I think hon. members will agree that in principle it is undesirable to make grants to the C.B.C. for operating expenditures. I agree with them. There should be laid down a system of revenue for the corporation adequate for it to carry on a proper national broadcasting service in Canada under existing economic conditions. Just as with any other well-run enterprise the corporation should then have the responsibility of carrying out its task with the maximum efficiency within the limits of the revenue provided.
This vote asked for today is to prevent wholesale dislocation of the broadcasting services pending a full consideration of the royal commission report and possible legislation. At the fall session of parliament the house may wish to examine this whole question of financial provision for the national broadcasting system.
Frankly I admit that the government has not had time or the opportunity to give the study to the Massey report that we wish to give it, and we have not had time to formulate a policy or legislation based upon the report if we should accept it. I think it is quite likely the report will be accepted. I have made some study of it and I think it is a splendid report. I am not going to go into the details with reference to the arguments on that report. We had on that commission some of the most learned gentlemen in Canada and as a result of great study and the representations which have been made to them they have seen fit to make recommendations with reference to the future conduct and carrying on of the system.
Let me turn for a moment to the loan of $1,500,000 for television. This is a further loan to the C.B.C. for the development of television. At the end of 1949 parliament approved a loan of $4,500,000 to the corporation to enable it to establish television production centres in Montreal and Toronto. I think hon. gentlemen will remember that at that time I told the house that further loans would be necessary, probably up to $10 million. I realized fully at that time that the introduction of television into Canada was going to be a far more costly proposition than was generally regarded in this country. There was a demand for it and in order to keep up with the developments throughout the world and on this continent it was thought
Supply-National Revenue fit that we should proceed with the development of television on a fairly restricted basis.
The first loan covered the capital costs of the two centres. This new loan of $1,500,000 will cover mainly preliminary work and current costs during the first months of operations. It is really an operational loan rather than a loan for capital expenditures, but in that would be included some capital equipment.
The corporation had planned to have these centres in both cities operating in September of this year. However, unforeseen difficulties have been encountered. Delays in obtaining some construction materials are holding back the studio and transmitter building in Toronto. In addition, word has recently been received that there will be a delay of some months in delivery of television studio equipment on order from Great Britain because of defence pressures there. Orders totalling about $1 million were given for equipment to the Marconi people. We were pressed in this house to give that order to Britain so that they might have Canadian and United States dollars with which to make purchases of food in this country. As a consequence of the delays that have occurred it does not appear as though the Toronto centre could be operating before late winter of 1952. The actual date still depends on deliveries of construction materials and equipment from Great Britain.
The situation in Montreal is that the studio building is well advanced but there has been a considerable delay in starting the transmitter building and tower on Mount Royal. This was due to lack of permission to go ahead on the Mount Royal site. The necessary approval has been given recently and work has begun. It is expected that it should take about a year to complete the transmitter and the tower installations on Mount Royal.
These two centres have been planned as the first keystones of a Canadian national television system. It is planned that programs from them would be transmitted, not only directly in the Montreal and Toronto areas but also later over stations to be developed in other areas. Programs would be supplied to stations in other parts of Canada, for some time at least, by means of kinescope recordings.
In the fall, following consideration of the Massey report, decisions can be taken regarding revenue arrangements for the television system and plans for its extension in other parts of the country. I recommend again the Massey report and particularly that section of it which deals with television. Applications have been made by private

Supply-National Revenue companies to get television airways and allocations. The report recommends that they be not proceeded with until our own two stations reach a further stage of development.
Let me say a word with reference to the international service, and I am not going to be much longer. This service continues its work, the main purpose of which is the projection of a clear picture of the life of Canada and a definite attempt to combat in every way possible communistic ideology. During the past three years many changes have come about in the policy or controlling philosophy of the international service.
It continues to speak to many countries where the battle for men's minds is not carried on with intensity and in a friendly manner. This is true, for instance, of the broadcasts to the United Kingdom, other commonwealth countries, the Latin American countries and the Scandinavian countries. But where the conflict of ideologies is really sharp and dangerous to the cause of freedom as we understand it, as in Italy, Germany, Czechoslovakia and Russia, the "Voice of Canada" has played a very definite combative role through its transmissions. May I quote a passage from an article by H. B. Hodson which appeared in a recent issue of the BBC Quarterly, where he says:
The problem of propaganda by radio is highly controversial, and I do not propose to embark on it here, beyond asserting three propositions.
He then goes on to detail the influence of propaganda. The international service has continued to expand and consolidate its transmissions. In February, 1951, broadcasts to Russia were inaugurated. These broadcasts are daily, two in number of one-half hour each. The Italian service has been consolidated and is now meeting with great success. In fact, for the first three months of 1951 the mail from Italian listeners was larger than the mail from any other European country to which we broadcast. The actual number of letters received in three months was 4,075. We now have a weekly program to Finland and this has met with a surprisingly successful response.
The policy governing the C.B.C. international service continues to be worked out through careful consultation and co-operation between the responsible officials of the international service and the Department of External Affairs.
There are many arguments for further expansion of the service. Pressure has been exerted in favour of our embarking on broadcasts to Russia in Ukrainian, to Czechoslovakia with more extensive use of Slovak, to Poland, to Yugoslavia, to Hungary, etc. Forceful reasons are advanced in favour
of all these proposed extensions. At the present time, however, the facilities provided for the C.B.C. international service are taxed to their capacity. In other words, all the available good listening time for European transmissions is occupied at present and no expansion such as has been suggested can be undertaken without serious curtailment of the present service. Two additional transmitters would be needed for further additions to European services.
The general response to the international service continues to be very good. During the year 1950 the total number of letters received from listeners in all parts of the world was 41,147. I am not going to bore the committee with details of all that has been done by the international service. We have copies of many of the letters written by people who express great satisfaction at having heard the C.B.C. signal.
In spite of the fact that additional European services in Russian and Finnish have been developed the operating budget of the C.B.C. international service remains at approximately the same level at which it was a year ago. This fact will necessitate the most stringent economy in many aspects of the service, notably in its publications and in keeping adequate personnel which is necessary if the service is to maintain the position it has built up.
The greatest vindication that there could be of the policies that have been in operation over the past ten or twelve years so far as the C.B.C. is concerned is found, in my opinion, in the Massey report. At this time I am not going to attempt to make an analysis or deal critically with the minority report. However, I say, after having looked over it, that the Massey commission, which had the opportunity and the time to hear representations from all classes and kinds of people and organizations in Canada, has embodied in their written report vindication of the policies that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has developed and put into effect ever since its inception.


Mr. Mclvor:: I should like to pay my
tribute to the officials responsible for giving us the programs throughout the years. We get up in the morning and we hear the news without having to use our glasses to read. We hear the news at noon and again at night without any trouble. As one old gentleman on the old age pension said to me: "I hear the hockey games all winter and it is worth the fee of $2.50 when you can sit there and hear the whole thing." We get athletics in the summer. At different times there are dramatic presentations. As one young man said, who is fond of music: "You turn on

your radio and you get outstanding programs of music just for listening." At certain times we can hear our party leaders who can spread themselves without being troubled by those who sit on the opposite side. At special seasons such as Christmas and New Year's there is special music which is worth all it costs. We have morning devotions and our Sunday radio which is a great blessing to Canada. I take this opportunity to pay my tribute to the officials of the C.B.C. I hope they will not let any pin pricks bother them throughout the year but will carry on happily.


Donald Methuen Fleming: When I spoke earlier I
indicated the difficulties that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is facing as the result of rising costs. Of course to maintain its services, let alone expand them, it has to have adequate revenue. That is self-evident. The. whole question that presents itself at this stage is where that additional revenue is coming from and on what terms. Hitherto the revenue has consisted of the $2.50 licence fee, and last year some $650,000 advanced by way of a loan.
The minister has said quite frankly that the government has not yet had time to study the Massey report nor, as he put it, time to formulate a policy. Those are words of the highest significance for the purposes of this debate and certainly with relation to the argument I have put before the committee. My whole submission today is based upon the fact that nobody in this house has yet had an opportunity to formulate his ideas on policy adequately after sufficient study of this report. The government is no exception to that rule. The minister has said that the government has not had time to formulate a policy. Yet in the face of that admission the government is asking the house to approve a departure from the policy that has prevailed from the time of the inception of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation right down to this minute.
The minister referred to that in his opening remarks and said that the funds that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation had received from parliament had always been received by way of loans. Quite so, Mr. Chairman. That is why when one comes to examine an item like No. 670 one is struck at once by the fact that here is involved a complete departure from that principle which is written into the terms of section 17 of the Canadian Broadcasting Act, and has been faithfully followed from the time this corporation came into existence, as I have said, right down to this minute. Notwithstanding that fact, notwithstanding also the 80709-313
Supply-National Revenue fact that the minister admits that the government has not had time to study this report and has not had time to formulate a policy, the government is asking the house to take a jump in the dark and to depart from that recognized, established, statutory policy.
If I needed any further vindication of the submission I have made to the committee this afternoon, it is contained abundantly in the statement the minister has made today. I urge the committee to give the Massey commission report the thorough study it deserves, not to take a superficial glance at it and then some slapdash ill-considered action following submission of the report, or to make a departure in policy without a comprehensive study of the whole situation. What I am asking now is that this item should be allowed to stand until the kind of study that the importance of this report justifies and demands is given to it, and that no departure from established and statutory policy should be made until the house has studied the report, and until a committee of the house has gone exhaustively into all aspects of the report in relation to broadcasting and television.
No harm will come to the corporation by deferring the voting of these sums until the fall, because we will be able in the fall to do everything that is required in the way of voting money to provide whatever assistance the corporation needs during the fiscal year, which will run until the 31st March next. We will be able to do it then with all the knowledge that ought to be possessed and which is not, in my submission, in the minds of the government, in the mind of the minister, or in the minds of members sitting in this committee today. It seems to me only simple common sense that we should defer action until we study this question, that we should not make an important departure from established policy in the face of the inadequate consideration that has been given hitherto. No harm would come to the C.B.C. by waiting until the fall session for that necessary study. This means of making a grant to the C.B.C. may not be the means that parliament will decide is proper to provide the needed revenues for the corporation to avoid deficits.
There is nothing that the minister has said today that commits him or commits the government to the acceptance of that method as the method by which deficits on the part of C.B.C. are to be met in the future with the nuisance $2.50 licence fee continuing. Therefore I say that we are not doing justice to the report of the Massey commission, we are not doing justice to the importance of this problem, we are not doing justice to our own

Supply-National Revenue claim to common sense by proceeding today to vote these sums involving a new departure in policy and based on the most superficial consideration of a problem of the highest importance for all Canada.


Mr. Slewari (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Chairman, I cannot for the life of me see where we are doing an injustice to the Massey report by agreeing to provide an interim grant to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Nor do I see why a particular brand of common sense demands that this item should be deferred until the fall. Surely the situation is that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has been running deficits for some years, and it has again this year. If the corporation is on its toes, as we expect it to be, it must be planning its winter programs now, and it cannot plan them very successfully if it knows it is not going to have any money to carry out those programs. Therefore if we expect the sort of programming from the C.B.C. that we have had in the past it has got to be certain it will have some interim grant such as this. So I differ with the hon. member for Eglinton; I say it is common sense to let the corporation know that part of the money is available to it now.
I agree with the hon. member that it would be a good idea to have a special committee on broadcasting in the fall. We had such a committee last year. For once the Canadian Association of Broadcasters was not represented, so we could spend all our time examining thoroughly and meticulously what the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was doing and what it was hoping to do. We investigated it to the exclusion of all other agencies. We investigated charges of extravagance, incompetence and loose management, and the corporation came out of that investigation very well indeed. I do not think the fact that the royal commission was sitting at the time hindered any member of that committee or prevented him asking the questions he had in mind. That fact may have had some effect upon the report finally submitted, but beyond that I will disagree with my hon. friend. At that time the C.B.C. got the sort of going over it should get more frequently. In the past I think at times the committees may have wasted time listening to the complaints of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters. However, if they wish to appear when the next committee is set up no one will welcome their appearance more than I. Of this I am certain; the C.A.B. certainly will not completely adopt the minority recommendations in the Massey report. Indeed, if there is one thing of which I hold the C.B.C. culpable 
it is that it has not lived up to its own regulations. If we had this independent authority which has been asked for over both the C.B.C. and the C.A.B., I think the private broadcasters in this country would get the shock of their lives. If there is to be a committee set up in the fall I want it to be told that the C.B.C. has lived up to the regulations concerning private radio stations more than has been the case in the past. I have no objection to private radio stations; I think they have an invaluable part to play as community stations; but we must not forget that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is a national institution, and I hope the government will see its way clear to implement the recommendations of the Massey commission and give the C.B.C. the funds it needs to do the job we expect from it.


Mr. Hansell:: I do not think this day should go by or this item should pass without saying a word or two on it, as the expression of my own mind after giving these matters a good deal of thought. I am going to follow the same tack I have followed a good many times before; perhaps hon. members know what that is.
I am still not satisfied that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, in its talks department, is being operated in the interests of the Canadian people and our concept of our free way of life. I know that the very moment one speaks in that vein the cry goes up that one is attempting to break down public confidence in this great national institution. I have no desire to do that, but when I have a conviction I am not going to remain silent. If I have to choose between warning of what I believe to be the dangers on the path along which I think we are being very subtly led, and taking a chance on being branded as one who is destroying public confidence in the C.B.C., then I am afraid I shall have to choose the latter and take that chance. I would not say this if I had not listened to these talks occasionally; and of course it may be said that I just happened to listen to the wrong talks. No citizen sits with his ear glued to the radio from early morning until late at night and takes in every talk that goes over the air. I am not a radio fiend; I do not do that. It is impossible for me to say that I have listened to every talk on the C.B.C. programs. I have not. But I have received a number of complaints from people who think as I do. I do not mean to say they think as I do about the C.B.C., but think as I do about life, as I think in respect to the enemy of our democracy that is out to destroy us if possible, and

as I think along certain Christian lines. I have had these complaints verbally and by correspondence.
I know what the answer is. The answer is: Well, we have our talks department and we attempt to call in speakers who will give us a broad range of views. These men hold different views concerning this matter and that, and we believe in free speech. That is the cry. When the corporation is asked about that very often they will say this is a principle that has been adopted and favoured by parliamentary committees that have sat in the past. Of course that statement contains only an element of truth. If it comes to a question of free speech what parliamentary committee will not say it is in agreement with that principle? Of course it will. We are all in favour of free speech. But let me say that we do not have free speech when we have a talks department responsible for choosing the people who use the national network to put over their views. You cannot have free speech by that process. The only way you can have free speech is to have the air open to everyone. I realize that is neither practical nor possible, but let us not put up the cry that we are in favour of free speech and are doing our best to give the people every possible view of a situation. I say that when we take that attitude we are taking the attitude that the people are incapable of making up their own minds. It is all very well to say: We have our publications, we have our newspapers; would you say the same thing about them? Any newspaper or any periodical that wishes to express its views is welcome to do so. Any individual in the country who wishes to express his view is welcome to do so. But when we are using the taxpayers' money for the purpose of a talks department which chooses the speakers, I say we have no right to do that. That is my conviction.
In pursuing my argument, I would ask this question: As to the news of the day, the news of the week or the happenings in any part of the world, is it necessary to have that news pre-digested by half a dozen, a dozen, or a hundred people and then to have it expounded over the air to be redigested by the people? Is that necessary? I say it is not. I say that it is not a healthy procedure. For instance, such topics as the MacArthur incident have been commented on. Broadcasts have been given on it. Speakers have been chosen to express their views. I say I do not agree that anyone else should use this publicly-owned institution to pre-digest that news and put it over the air-excuse the expression "put 80709-313J
Supply-National Revenue it over"; I do not mean it in any derogatory sense-or expounded over the air with their own particular mental slant upon it.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


Ernest George Hansell: Someone asks: Why not? It is all right if a person wants to do it himself but not at the taxpayers' expense. That is what I say. That is why not. I do not believe that that is a healthy state of affairs. The recognition of China is another subject which I do not believe has to be digested by commentators in order afterwards to expect the radio audience to digest that which has been pre-digested. There can be no purpose in talks over the radio except the influence of public opinion. What other purpose could there be?


John Horne Blackmore: Subtle indoctrination.


Ernest George Hansell: I am glad the hon. member for Lethbridge made that interjection. I believe that is exactly what it is.
The one thing that is now on the front pages of the papers and is of world-wide interest is the Iranian oil situation. I say that we will safeguard the interests of our people if we let them read the news. I am quite agreeable that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should go ahead with their news program. Let the people read the news. Let them hear the news. Let them make up their own minds concerning it.


John Horne Blackmore: Let them form their own prejudices.


Ernest George Hansell: What I believe, Mr. Chairman, is that the talks department of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is becoming a propaganda panel and is being used to condition the mentality of our people to accept, at least without great protest, a way of life that is contrary to that which we hold dear and which would otherwise lead us on to the destiny which free peoples have envisioned. That is my honest conviction.
I know that fine speakers have been heard over the air. I am not saying that it is all bad. You do not have to have the thing all bad. As a matfer of fact, even though there is an occasional speaker or an exceptional one propounding our conception of our particular way of life-even though there is the occasional speaker doing that-it might very well become a sort of argument that therefore we are expressing every view. I agree that there have been some excellent speakers. I know that someone will say: Oh yes, the excellent speakers are those who agree with you. I know that is something that will be said. It is not a matter of agreeing with me. These things cannot always be

Supply-National Revenue determined simply by reading on the surface of the words that are published or spoken. Many of these things are sensed, and they are sensed by those who have a real conviction of that which is right.
The corporation is asking for money. I am not going to say that they should not be given assistance when they need it. But here is one place where they could cut down a little on expenses. I do not believe it would hurt this country one tiny, little bit if they simply cut out completely their talks department. As a matter of fact, I believe that the country would be better off for it.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Ernest George Hansell: One or two hon. members say "nonsense". I assess the value of that remark having regard to the source from which it comes.
I do not think I shall have anything more to say at this time, Mr. Chairman; but I do say that this is one place where we could cut expenses, and I believe the country would be better off for it.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I should like to agree with what the hon. member has just said. Unfortunately I see-and records have been kept- that there is a continuous emission of leftist propaganda, to give it its true name, over the talks department. There may be a very proper reason for these talks. But I think that if the record is studied of the political slant of all these talks that go over this series, you will find that they are weighted preponderantly to the left. I wish to agree with what the hon. member has said in this regard.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Chairman, I would
think it would be regrettable if the Canadian' Broadcasting Corporation were to eliminate or, to use another phrase, to cut out these talks by various speakers who represent all schools of thought, as far as I am able to find out or ascertain by listening to them over the air. And I have had an opportunity these past few months to listen to them a very great deal, because part of the time I was not able to get out. It is the easiest thing in the world to denounce a thing-I was going to use the word that has been mentioned here for the last two days-to smear a thing that you do not like, to call it propaganda. I presume that the thing you like is education, and the thing that you do not like is propaganda. Well, until we are mature enough to listen to the things we do not like and to understand that there are people who like them and who agree with them, we are too immature to make a decision as to what should be said over radio broadcasts.

The hon. member for Macleod says: "Leave these matters to newspapers."


Ernest George Hansell: I did not say that.


Donald MacInnis: I take it back. I sincerely believe that the hon. member did say that. Let me mention the way it started. He referred to the Iranian oil situation and to the comments made over the broadcast on that. He said: "We can very well leave that to our newspapers."


Ernest George Hansell: I did not say that.


Donald MacInnis: If he has not said that, then he would not want it referred to in the broadcast talks, and he would not want it referred to in the newspapers. How are we to be informed on the subject? In my opinion newspapers are not necessarily free agents, neither are they imbued with the singlemindedness of informing the public on these matters that are of public importance, from an unbiased point of view. Material was put on the record here the other evening to show that that was so. I will say this: If it were not for the radio, as far as the newspapers are concerned in my city, I would hardly have got to the public at all in the last general election. Thank God we did have the radio and we did get some opportunity to get our views over to the public.


John George Diefenbaker: Over private stations.


Donald MacInnis: Private stations and C.B.C. as well. Private stations sold the time, and then there was free time on the C.B.C.


John George Diefenbaker: That is right.


Donald MacInnis: In a party such as ours, where we have not the financial assistance of particular interests, this free time is very important to us. Let me give you one instance of what happened in one of the Vancouver constituencies. The Liberal candidate invited the Conservative candidate to a debate on housing, but the Conservative candidate did not accept the invitation. The C.C.F. candidate said: "Since the Conservative candidate has turned you down I will be glad to debate the question of housing with you." There was a debate. I did not attend it, but I am told that at least the C.C.F. candidate did not have the worst of the debate; but when the Sun newspaper came out with the report of the meeting, there was a report only of what the Liberal candidate had said. There was not a word about what the C.C.F. candidate had said.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: They had him bought over.


Donald MacInnis: Suppose a boxing match was reported in the same way, a fight between Walcott and Louis. Suppose all that appeared in the papers were the uppercuts and the jabs

of Walcott and nothing about the punches that Louis gave. What would your readers say?


Arza Clair Casselman: A poor fight.


Donald MacInnis: They would say that it was a poor fight, and that is exactly what was intended in the way that the report was made. I am mentioning that in order to show that without the facilities of the C.B.C. a great many people in this country would not get their views heard at all.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: It may be just as well, perhaps.


Donald MacInnis: It may be just as well, but who is to decide-


Major James William Coldwell: Whose views should be
expressed?


Donald MacInnis: Who is going to decide what views are to be expressed?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: That is the point, exactly.


Donald MacInnis: The government of Canada, in its wisdom, decided to set up the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and it has appointed people to decide who is going to do these things. Unless it can be demonstrated that certain views are not given expression to on the C.B.C.-


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Who are they to decide?


Donald MacInnis: You might as well say: who is the government of Canada to decide what should be done here? First of all the government of Canada was elected by the people of Canada. The corporation was set up. The board of directors was chosen by the government. Surely that is democracy in action, is it not? Whom would you leave it to? The people who can afford to do it because they have the economic means? That is not the trend of the times, because when that was the situation only the favoured few had an opportunity to put their views before the public and that day I hope is gone forever.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I just want to add a word to what has been said. I do not find myself in full agreement with the hon. member for Macleod nor with my colleague from York West, though I sympathize up to a point. I feel it would be a pity to do away with the talks, because I do think we have got to face the expression of different views; we have to act our age, and we have got to presume that in democracy we have enough discrimination through broad education so that we can distinguish the good from the bad. But I make this qualification. There was a time, I confess, when I was inclined to say: Let everybody express their views regardless of what they may be. I was slow to believe what I now believe, namely, that there are those living among us
Supply-National Revenue who enjoy the freedoms that our way of life provides, and yet who are utterly disloyal to our way of life. In other words, they are enemies of the state. While it is an extremely difficult choice to make, I do think that is the responsibility which has to be taken by those who are making the selection. Happily we have a great many things where we agree that there should be wide expression of views. For instance we have our weekly broadcasts in which the various party leaders express their views. We all agree with that. There are various other things which I think are free from abuse. On the other hand there is always this to be borne in mind, that the disloyal citizen, the person who is an enemy of the state, can often appear a most reasonable person. He may often conduct himself so that it would appear as if he actually shared the views respecting liberty that we all share. Therefore while I cannot find myself in agreement with the suggestion that we should do away with these talks-because that seems to be just shutting the doors and windows to keep out the light-nevertheless I do feel that those who are responsible must keep in mind that we find in strange places people who prove to be enemies of the state.
Often in this chamber we have heard quotations from a book called "The God That Failed". It is an extraordinary book, because it is the confession of six distinguished people who went a long way on the road to communism, but who came back. There are others who are distinguished, who go on the road to communism but do not come back. For them we have to be on the lookout.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, to a great extent I find myself in agreement with the hon. member for Greenwood. I think there is a distinction between those who are enemies of the state and who are willing to foment sedition and to undermine our institutions, and those whose minds are progressive and who indulge in what is legitimate criticism of the evils of our society. The latter may try to give an objective view of events throughout the world.
When I have the opportunity of listening to the radio I must confess that it is confined pretty much to stations of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, because they are devoid of so much of the objectionable advertising that comes over the private stations. I had the opportunity last autumn, while I was at the meeting of the United Nations, over week ends and at other times, to address some of the university people in the United States not so far from our Canadian border. It was interesting to note that almost

Supply-National Revenue invariably-I was going to say invariably, because I believe that is so-persons who were teaching in those institutions mentioned the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and how they listened to the objective presentation of the news over the C.B.C. I found that quite a large number listened to the ten o'clock broadcast at night.
I think all hon. members will agree that that is usually an objective presentation of the news of the day, both national and international. There are times when perhaps those of us who are interested in what happens in this house may feel that there are some deficiencies in the news. We regret that. But, on the whole, I think it can be said that news broadcasts over the corporation stations are, as a rule, abjective. It is also noteworthy that the commentaries made over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation have won high praise, perhaps not necessarily from those organizations that may be considered to the left or to the right, but from university groups and others who make an appraisal of broadcasting in both the United States and Canada.
Though at times I find myself in sharp disagreement with some views expressed, I must say that on the whole the talks are objective and give various sides in respect of those questions before the public that are under discussion.
Coming down to the item of $1,500,000 suggested as a grant to the C.B.C., my view is that the House of Commons would be warranted in adapting the proposal and supporting the granting of this amount to the corporation. Those of us who were on the radio committee in former years-I was not on the last one, but I believe I served on all the others since radio committees have been set up by parliament-realize that the C.B.C. has been crippled through lack of funds. We realize, too, that the fee has remained the same-and I think it must remain the same- while costs in every respect have risen sharply. We realize that revenues must come from somewhere, if the service of the corporation is to be maintained in a satisfactory manner.
Programs depend very largely upon revenue, and the manner in which programs have been built up out of the revenue the corporation has had in the past is, I think, remarkable. I am not going into all the phases of the Massey report; but anyone who reads it will see at once that while there are some criticisms of the corporation, there is a great deal of praise for much that it has done. It has brought good music, good opera and good drama into the homes of the Canadian people. Its literary critics have recommended good books and good reading to the people of

Canada. I believe the C.B.C has done perhaps more than any other institution we have to raise the cultural tastes-and I shall not use the expression "cultural level", because I do not like it-of the Canadian people in regard to some of the good things in literature, in music, in drama and, to a limited extent, in art.
I should hope that in the fall the house would provide adequately for the corporation, and for its television. I am glad the Massey commission has recommended the kind of experiment in television that it has recommended. Some of us in this chamber now were in New York at the meeting of the United Nations last autumn, at which time we installed a television set in our delegation lounge, with the thought that we and our staff would enjoy it. I think the consensus however was that the sponsored programs we were seeing were, in the main, below the level we would expect from this great new organ of public entertainment and information. With the exception of the sports events and a few other programs, they were of a low level. And as for their drama, well, I have seen classes of Sunday school children who could perform more acceptably than some of the performances that were given-mixed up as they nearly all were with the advertising of beer, liquor and a good many other commodities whose makers were paying for the television in that country.
I say: Heaven defend us from the kind of television they have in the United States. Let us do all we can to build up in this country something that will be a credit to Canada and to the corporation.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I think
it is unfortunate that a matter as important as this should have been left to the dying days of the session. There is no matter more important to be brought before parliament, so far as the country as a whole is concerned, than matters connected with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and, in fact, the whole question of broadcasting.
I was on the committee last year that dealt with broadcasting, and our report was hampered and confined by the fact that we did not wish to make any decision or come to any final determination of many of the questions connected with this problem, because the Massey commission was sitting, and we felt that the report of that commission deserved to be considered before any final decision was made in respect of various controversial matters that came before the committee.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. I am

in agreement with much of what he said with regard to the objectivity of news broadcasts, but I disagree with him on the question of television. I think we would have been advanced more materially along the road to television had the decision been made by parliament that private corporations as well as the C.B.C. might engage in that field. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar spoke of the degrading of television in the United States by advertising, but that difficulty could easily be met by proper controls, and those proper controls could be achieved by setting up a semi-judicial board to decide on such questions. It is because we believe in the need of such a board that we of the Progressive Conservative party have supported the transfer of the judicial functions and the determination of disputes as between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and private broadcasters to such a board as the transport board which today exercises similar functions in connection with television. I feel that we in Canada will continue to be far behind in the development of television so long as television remains the exclusive function of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
The question as to whether $1,500,000 should be voted for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation depends in large measure on how the revenues of the corporation are to be raised. It was generally understood, and that was the attitude of the minister at the time, that at no time would advertising be allowed to contribute more than approximately $500,000 to the revenues of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Today that amount has been tripled and quadrupled and in my opinion the national programs of the C.B.C. are too greatly dependent on advertising. That is a matter of personal opinion. I realize that if advertising is taken away parliament will have to contribute more or the licence fee will have to be so greatly increased as to deny many people the right of possessing a radio.
Generally speaking the Canadian people are opposed to any increase in the licence fee. I think that is almost without exception. Some months ago the question was raised that possibly $5 would be a fair fee. That was more or less a feeler sent out from official quarters to ascertain public opinion. Public opinion was ascertained very quickly by general resentment being expressed to that course being followed. If the amount of advertising is not to be increased-as I see it, it should be materially decreased-then parliament will have to vote a large sum of money to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Supply-National Revenue
Before that is done I feel that the radio committee should be set up and this whole question submitted to that committee. However desirous the committee may be today to debate this important question, it cannot receive the consideration it could in the matter of an hour or an hour and a half. A request from the C.B.C. for $1,500,000 to tide it over constitutes an outstanding change in the financing of the C.B.C. by parliament and the Canadian people. I believe that assistance must be given but I feel that parliament has the right to the assurance that the amount of time taken up by advertising will be materially reduced. One hears many programs from the United States that obviously originate in the United States and which are put out over Canadian stations.


James Joseph McCann: They pay for that if it goes out over our network.


John George Diefenbaker: I appreciate that they pay for it. But reference to the Stars and Stripes and United States institutions on a program going out over Canadian C.B.C. stations is something that I feel should not be permitted, whether they pay for it or not. There should be an agreement with United States corporations that in their international advertising nothing shall be said indicative of the United States system of government being preferable to our own, and in particular there should be no reference as part of the program to the constitution of the United States as though it were ours. Such references should not be made during the course of a broadcast, but I have heard them on several occasions.


James Joseph McCann: Do you think that those restrictions would promote good relations between the countries?


John George Diefenbaker: It is not a question of good relations. I believe in good relations, but I ask my hon. friend how long the United States would stand for broadcasts from Canadian stations dealing with purely Canadian matters and from the point of view of British connections over United States stations. I believe that everything should be done to bring about good relations, but I do not believe that advertisers should be allowed to use the facilities of the C.B.C. to broadcast purely United States programs, the only justification being that it is a matter of advertising.
I shall say no more as far as news items are concerned. As far as talks are concerned, I presume that all of us enjoy things with which we agree and dislike things with which we disagree.


Donald MacInnis: We listen for comfort, not for information.
4934	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Revenue


John George Diefenbaker: After all we do not want to spoonfeed our people with the things that some board or group decides is good for the Canadian people. So long as it is not a matter of disloyalty, so long as it does not constitute sedition or is not contrary to good taste I can see no reason why various viewpoints should not be expressed. Indeed I can see no reason why any government board or any other board should be able to determine that only certain types of broadcasts along certain constituted lines shall be permitted over the C.B.C. I believe that out of a community of viewpoints will come, under a democracy, advance and sound decision and sound conclusion.
I certainly would not want to see the C.B.C. throttled by decisions made by persons in authority as to what I ought to be permitted to hear regardless of whether I agree or disagree with what is being said, provided what is being said constitutes no offence and is within the limits of good taste.


Ernest George Hansell: I will only take a moment,
but I believe the hon. member for Vancouver East and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar have been inclined to place an emphasis on my remarks that is not justified. I did not say that we should leave expression of opinion to the press.


Mr. Ferrie:: Oh, oh.


Ernest George Hansell: I wish my hon. friend would not interrupt the way he does. I always feel like pulling my dagger out. He is a likable fellow, and I do not like to do it. What I said was that if newspapers want to comment editorially about news that is of some prominence or if any individual wants to comment over the radio on the same thing that is their business, and it is all right, but I do not agree that the taxpayers' money ;o the amount of millions of dollars should oe used in order that a panel of men should choose speakers to mould the thinking of our people along certain lines by choosing a dozen or so men to do it. That was what I said. I should like to ask the minister one question. I have to use a supposition to bring out my point. Suppose the government should feel that a certain thing should be done in respect of broadcasting. If I may use a tangible illustration, suppose the government should agree that it would be wise to cut out the talks department, and they passed on that recommendation to the C.B.C.: would the C.B.C. feel in duty bound to comply with that recommendation? I should like to know what the relationship is between the government and the C.B.C. with respect to a policy such as I have illustrated.


James Joseph McCann: To answer the hon. member's question, I have been connected more or less with the C.B.C. for a number of years, first of all as a member of the committee, and for the past six or eight years I have been responsible for it in the house. At no time have I known of the government directing the C.B.C. with reference to what their policy should be.


Ernest George Hansell: I agree with the minister.
I do not think they have. I am not suggesting they do. I drew a supposition and asked the minister what the relationship was between the two. My purpose in asking the question was this. Are we voting money to a corporation with no strings attached to it whatsoever? Are we voting the taxpayers' money to a corporation without having the government responsible for saying how it should be spent? There is a principle involved there, and that is really my question.


James Joseph McCann: We are voting money to a
corporation which is responsible to parliament. The vote is made by parliament, and the corporation is responsible to parliament and not to the government.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Would the minister, with
the consent of the committee, put on Hansard, first, of all, the budget of the C.B.C. for the present fiscal year, 1951-52, and second, the statement of income and expenditures for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1951?


James Joseph McCann: The matter of the expenditures of the C.B.C. up to March, 1951, is of course in the report.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We have not got the report.


James Joseph McCann: The report has been submitted to the Auditor General, and until it receives his signature it is not for publication. As soon as it receives his signature it will be printed and distributed. So far as the budget for the present year is concerned, we cannot give you the complete figures for the budget. We have the prospective budget to the end of the year. These things vary. The cost of your wire lines, performers, artists and all other items of expenditure vary. Some of those employed are on a salary basis, some on a term basis and some on a performance basis. It is a hard thing to budget except that you know you have certain programs to put on, so many hours every day and so many days. You know from past experience what your costs have been. You take into consideration increased costs, and that constitutes your budget just the same as any other budget that comes before the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister's answer amazes me. He knows perfectly well that it has been the practice in times past for the C.B.C. to give to the special parliamentary committee on the C.B.C. its statement of income and expenditures before they are audited by the Auditor General. It is tentative of course until audited by the Auditor General. To suggest that three months after the close of the fiscal year of the C.B.C. the committee should not receive the statement of income and expenditure for the last fiscal year just does not make sense to me. It never was denied in the past to the special committee. I do not understand why it should be denied to this committee especially when we have hot been given any information except that we have been told there is a deficit for the past fiscal year. Surely the committee is entitled to have all the figures and not just be given a figure as to the deficit.


James Joseph McCann: I can give the hon. member approximate figures. I can give him the actual figures, but there is a lot of detail to it. I will give odd figures. Licence fees last year were $5,500,000, and commercial advertising, $2,400,000.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Could it not be put on Hansard?


James Joseph McCann: I do not propose to put it on the record until it has received the signature of the Auditor General. That is not customary at all.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is not carried. We are going to get some of this information.


James Joseph McCann: As to expenditures, there was $4 million for programs, $1,900,000 for engineering, $1,100,000 for station networks, $540,000 for administration, and then there is press and information, et cetera.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Let us have those.


James Joseph McCann: Press and information,
$271,000; commercial, $200,000; interest on loans, $230,000. That made a deficit of $913,000 at that time. If you add to that the allowances for depreciation of 2J per cent on buildings and 5 per cent on equipment, which are the ordinary rates, it means that you have to add $235,000 to the $913,000, which gives you a deficit of $1,149,000.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Has the minister got the figures for income there?


Donald MacInnis: Six o'clock.


James Joseph McCann: The gross income was $8,300,000.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am asking for the details for the three items.
Supply-National Revenue


James Joseph McCann: Fees, $5,500,000; commercial advertising, $2,400,000; miscellaneous, $266,000.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Has the minister any
further information on the item of $271,000 for press and information?


James Joseph McCann: I have not the details on that here.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am sure the officials sitting right in front of the minister have them.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Chairman, according to standing order 15 on Friday night the hour from eight to nine is devoted to private bills. I would ask unanimous consent that we proceed with government business during the hour from eight to nine this evening.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Joseph McCann: The principal items under
press and information are:
Advertisements	 $159,000
Displays and exhibits	 1,457
Photographic and art	work	 26,000
Postage	 13,000
Printing and stationery	 74,000
Salaries	 115,000
Travelling expenses	 4,802
Telephones	 3,032
Those and the smaller items make up a total of $271,476.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister mentioned a figure of $159,000 for advertising. Surely that is not right. That must be the payment for press services.


James Joseph McCann: I am sorry; I read that figure incorrectly. It is $15,966.65. These figures are in pencil, and I did not get the decimal point in the right place.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What was the amount paid for press services?


James Joseph McCann: The figure is $145,779 paid to news agencies.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Would the minister indicate the payments to the various agencies making up that total?


James Joseph McCann: I have not that information.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am sure the officials sitting before the minister have the information as to the payments making up the total of $145,779. If they do not have it at this moment no doubt they can have it at seven o'clock.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall these items carry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Chairman. We are waiting for essential information.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are we going on with this at seven o'clock?


Alphonse Fournier: Oh, yes.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
4936	HOUSE OF
Supply[DOT]-National Revenue AFTER RECESS
The committee resumed at seven o'clock.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I was asking the minister for a break-down of the payments aggregating $145,779 made, as I understand, for news services. While the minister is looking up that information, and while the officials are taking their place, may I ask the minister again to put on the record the budget that the C.B.C. has compiled for the present year. To my surprise the minister suggested, prior to the dinner adjournment, that there is no budget. Everybody knows that the C.B.C. prepares a budget at the beginning of every fiscal year. A year ago in the committee we had the budget for the fiscal year then commenced and we spent some time examining it. I am quite sure that there is a budget prepared, indicating estimated expenditures and estimated revenues for the current year. That is what I asked the minister to put on the record.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. gentleman does me an injustice when he says that we did not have any budget. We certainly have a budget. We did not have it with us at the time.
With reference to the matter of giving detail of the cost for press services, which is approximately $147,000, I might explain that that is for the amount of money that we pay the various press agencies like British United Press, Canadian Press and another French agency for the services they render in the year. The hon. gentleman and others throughout the years, at parliamentary committees, have asked for that information; and it has been explained that we do not believe that it is in the best interests either of the corporation or of the company to give those figures in detail because in a subsequent year it puts us in a rather bad bargaining position when we are trying to get the services.
For 1951-52, our approximate revenues are roughly as follows:	From licence fees,
$5,700,000; commercial revenue, $2,500,000; miscellaneous revenues, $200,000; recovery re pool services-that is Radio Canada building -$175,000; engineering expenses recoverable from capital, $225,000; salary recovery re announcers and producers, $20,000. That comes to $8,820,000.
Our expenditures are as follows: board of governors, $17,145; administration, $121,369; engineering, $765,055; programs, $4,645,430; press and information-that is the very one the hon. gentleman was asking about- $268,330; commercial, $77,290. That gives a subtotal of $5,894,619. Other expenses are: superannuation, $235,000; salaries, $3,615,945; secretarial and casual wages, $135,000.


Then there is a system in the C.B.C. where they have a cost of living bonus instead of salary increases. That amounted to $592,000. Ordinary capital, including improvements to leased properties, $151,350; interest on loans, $255,500; unallocated, $100,000. If we add the estimated deficit to that, the total would be $2,159,414 which gives the total of $8,820,000, an amount equal to the revenue. I should say you subtract the deficit to get that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: 1 understand that the budgetary figures that the minister has just read are those for the fiscal year April 1, 1951, to March 31, 1952.


James Joseph McCann: That is right.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On the other matter, the news expenditures for the fiscal year 1950-51, it is true, as the minister has said, that this question has arisen in the parliamentary committee in the years when the committee has sat, and that the corporation officials have opposed being required to give information as to the payments made to the news services. I cannot see that there can be any great secrecy about that matter as far as the companies themselves are concerned because each of them knows what it is receiving, and it is a simple matter to arrive at the figures of the others by the simple process of subtraction. I think the members of this committee are the only ones who are kept in the dark as to what those payments are. I ask the minister to give the payments-I understood from his statement that there are three of them-into which this sum of $145,779 is divided.


James Joseph McCann: I have given you the Canadian ones. Then we make a payment to Reuters for services that were given to the international service.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Whatever they are I would
ask the minister to give us the payments. There cannot be more than three or four of them.


James Joseph McCann: In order to expedite matters, although I am deviating from what has been the practice for years, I will give other people's business: Canadian Press, $108,227; British United Press, $35,000, and the French press $4,000. Add these together and you get $147,227.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the minister now for a reason, for none has yet been given, as to why with respect to item 670 this money should be provided as a grant instead of a loan? It offends the whole policy of the act as we have it, and the policy that has always been followed, to make a grant now instead of a loan.


James Joseph McCann: One of the best reasons
that I can give-and I think it is a good reason-is that there is nothing in the broadcasting act that prohibits the making of a grant rather than a loan. I admit that it has been customary to make loans, but if you will turn to the Massey report at page 295 you will find that among other things they recommend:
That the total annual Income of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for all radio broadcasting purposes other than its international service be set by statute for five years, and that this income be found from licence fees, from commercial and miscellaneous revenue, and from a payment out of public money sufficient to make up the total statutory income.
On page 295 they have it all worked out under "statutory grants".


Donald Methuen Fleming: In other words, the committee is being invited to begin to implement the report even before it has been studied, because the minister said this afternoon that neither he nor the cabinet has had time to study it. These are his words: "The government has not had time to formulate a policy in regard to it." Can you imagine anything more extraordinary than to dive into this volume, extending, with the index, to over 500 pages, dive into it and come up with one out of the great many recommendations, seize on that one and undertake to implement it without relation to any of the other scores of recommendations, and involving a complete reversal of policy; and then to write it into this item and tell us in the item that it is:
To provide for an interim grant to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation pending amendment of the Canadian Broadcasting Act.
What amendments are pending? Are those amendments to have any relationship to the report? Are those amendments to have any relationship to this particular recommendation, "1" on page 295? What is the purport of those amendments? The minister says that there is nothing in the act now to prevent it. Well, he has taken care at least to tell us in item 670 that there are amendments coming. Presumably, somebody in the government has had the idea that some amendments must be necessary, and that this item is to be introduced pending the kind of amendment that will make provision for a statutory grant, apparently, instead of loans, as has been the case heretofore. Here is section 17 of the Canadian Broadcasting Act, which authorizes the governor in council to make loans to the corporation which may be necessary to carry out construction, expansion or improvement of capital works. Then there is a limit put on the total of loans that may be outstanding at any one time.
Supply-National Revenue That has been up in the house before in connection with the amount of loans; but here, with the admission of the government that they have not had time to study this report, they just pick out one recommendation, reverse policy, and ask the committee in this slapdash fashion to provide $1,500,000, accompanied by a reversal of policy.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Is this
$1,500,000 for capital works or for current expenses?


James Joseph McCann: For current expenses to
meet part of the deficit which is anticipated for this current year. When we meet in the fall the whole matter of the financing of the C.B.C. will be taken into consideration. But in the meantime they must have money to pay salaries and other current expenses; otherwise they will probably have to fold up.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is not meeting the point of the hon. member for Eglinton why this must be turned into a grant. It seems like taking a flight to start before the Massey report has even been read by members of the cabinet. We have had that admitted this afternoon. So far as I know the minister has not said a single word to indicate why the preceding practice, which has the sanction of some years, could not be followed instead of turning this into a grant, which is a definite change of policy, and which may be or will be decided next autumn; but why start it now?


James Joseph McCann: In my opinion it is more
or less splitting hairs to argue whether this is a grant or a loan. The matter of a grant is not new, as far as the suggestion goes, in the matter of meeting the current expenses of the C.B.C. We have done that-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It is in the
Massey report.


James Joseph McCann: Exactly. This confirms
what has been suggested on many occasions, and I do not know of any better suggestion in the report than that the C.B.C. deficits be made up by a different method of financing than has been in vogue in the last number of years.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I must say
I am sure it would be very flattering to those who wrote the report to know that that suggestion is being adopted and is being quoted as the reason for the change in policy.


James Joseph McCann: You can find that out better than I can.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the C.B.C. needs money to meet current expenses then I am sure the

Supply-National Revenue committee is not going to boggle about providing the money to meet the current expenses but, Mr. Chairman, I point out to you that this is covering a whole fiscal year running up to March 31 of next year, and the minister has not yet said one word by way of justifying this departure of making a grant of it now instead of a loan. He has not given us any reason for that. There is nothing that is involved here by way of necessary provision of funds now that cannot be done in the fall after study. I move, Mr. Chairman:
That item 670 be amended by substituting the word "loan'' for the word "grant."
I point out that that change will have the effect of making whatever provision is required to meet the current need of funds of the corporation. In fact, it will provide those funds up to March 31 of next year. But it will not involve this change in policy in anticipation of an amendment that we do not know anything about yet.


James Joseph McCann: I will not take the responsibility of accepting the amendment because the original suggestion and request came not from me or from the government but from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


The Deputy Chairman:: Mr. Fleming has moved that item 670 be amended by substituting the word "loan" for the word "grant". I would point out that I have five items before me. The first of these is item 53. As hon. members know, each item is a separate resolution. If it is agreeable to hon. members we may continue with item 670, so that it may be in front of you immediately, and leave the other items; or we might carry some of the other items and deal with item 670 later. I would be prepared to follow whichever course is the more convenient.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I would point out that the discussion today has centered around item 670, which involves policy. My respectful suggestion is that, when it comes to a matter of voting, we deal with it first, and that the amendment should be dealt with now.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I would point out that citation 480 in Beauchesne, third edition, states:
The only motion allowed, when a resolution is under consideration in committee of supply, is that the amount be reduced or that the chairman leave the chair (either without making a report or to report progress on certain resolutions).
Each resolution can only be dealt with by being agreed to. reduced, negatived, superseded, or, by leave, withdrawn, and the withdrawal can be made although the decision of the committee has been taken upon amendments proposed to the resolution. Here, the power of the committee ceases. It is not allowable to attach a condition or an expression of opinion to a vote or to change the destination of a grant.


I am prepared to hear the hon. member, if he has any further explanations to make; but in view of this citation I would have to declare the amendment out of order.


John George Diefenbaker: In connection with the question raised by the hon. member for Eglinton, what is the total amount due and owing by the C.B.C. today for loans?


James Joseph McCann: The total amount is $8,400,000 in loans. That includes $4,500,000 for television. There was $2 million authorized in 1946, $1,250,000 in 1948, $4,500,000 in 1949 and $650,000 for working capital.


John George Diefenbaker: And those loans bear interest at 3 or 3J per cent?


James Joseph McCann: The interest rates vary from 2f per cent up to 3J per cent.


John George Diefenbaker: I would ask now, for information-and the minister has been very reasonable in the way he has answered the questions-what is the reason for the changeover. I have not yet heard any explanation why it should be necessary to change from a loan to a direct grant by parliament when the whole question of policy in reference to the C.B.C. would have to be fully discussed before a decision concerning so vital a change should be made. I am asking this question for information.


James Joseph McCann: I will give a candid reason. I expect that the recommendations-and perhaps I am premature-of the Massey report will be put into effect. That makes provision for grants. This would be one part of the grant that would be given for the current year-1951-52. That is the candid reason I give for it, and I think it will ultimately turn out to be the real reason of what will happen-without making any predictions, of course.


John George Diefenbaker: One further question: the minister says he expects that this particular portion of the Massey recommendations will be accepted, and that this will be just a portion of the anticipated necessary grant for the current year.


James Joseph McCann: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: What does the minister anticipate will be the necessary grant for the current year in addition to the $1,500,000 covered by this item in order effectually to permit the C.B.C. to carry out its policy generally outlined in the Massey commission report?


James Joseph McCann: If one looks again at the report of the Massey commission, and perhaps I should not refer to it so often-


John George Diefenbaker: That is all right.


James Joseph McCann: This calculation is based probably on what the revenue was in 1948. They figure it out here. They show the net licence fees-and they have gone up. The figure here is $5,135,000; last year it was $5,571,000. The total revenue there was $7,553,000 in that year. The total revenue this year is over $8,301,000, showing an increase.
Let us suppose there is a population of 14 million people. For purposes of illustration we will say that would be $14 million. If we subtract from $14 million the $8,301,000 we have $5,699,000. That would be the probable grant that would be paid-commercial revenue and other things being equal. In connection with current expenditures we have a deficit here of about $2 million odd. The rest of it could be used then to meet capital commitments.
After this however there will not be capital commitments, because it is proposed that this shall be an annual grant for the period of five years, and over and above operating deficits and expansion there should be a sufficient amount left to meet capital commitments from year to year.


John George Diefenbaker: So that the plan of the government, then, is that for the next five years the grants to be asked from parliament would be approximately, on the basis of anticipated earnings and expected earnings, $5 million a year.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Chairman, I did not say the plan of the government would be that at all. I say that is the suggestion made by the Massey commission.


John George Diefenbaker: But, you see, that is what makes it so difficult to know which parts of the recommendations by the Massey commission are to be accepted.


James Joseph McCann: I do not know that at all.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what makes it so very difficult at this time; because if the minister were taking the stand "We are going to accept this recommendation"-


James Joseph McCann: I am not taking that stand, even.


John George Diefenbaker: No-and that is what makes it so difficult.


James Joseph McCann: I am dealing with the suggestion and the recommendation as I see it personally.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what makes it so difficult to understand whether it is just a figure of $1,500,000 picked out of the air or out of the report of the Massey commission.
Supply-National Revenue If you are going to accept the recommendations of the Massey commission, if the minister were to say, "We are going to accept them," we could understand that, as he said, this would be an advance on account of what will be expected to be voted by parliament when the whole question comes before parliament either at the fall session, or the session following.
But the minister does not take that view. He says, "The C.B.C. officials would like to have $1,500,000. They need it. They do not want it any more by way of loan. They have changed their view because they anticipate that portion of the Massey commission report which states that it shall not be by loan but by way of grant." That is what makes it so difficult to deal with the matter. The government is unable to state just what its policy is going to be. It says, "Give us a million and a half; after all, the government has nothing to do with this but the C.B.C. has asked for a million and a half, and what is a million and a half anyway?" I cannot understand why the minister is not prepared to say that we will accept it by way of a loan to be granted by parliament until some final determination is made as to whether the Massey recommendation is to be followed.
Certainly parliament does not have to vote money because the C.B.C. officials would like a million and a half or would like to change over from a system of loans, on which they pay from two and three quarters per cent to three and one-eighth per cent interest, to a system of grants. They say that the reason they want a grant is because of a recommendation in the Massey report. The minister is asked whether the Massey report is going to be accepted and the answer is that the government has not read the report sufficiently to determine whether or not that course is going to be followed.
All this gives added reinforcement to the objection taken by the hon. member for Eglinton that a matter such as this should not be brought in during the last days of the session when full discussion and consideration are impossible.
I am not going to labour the matter any more, but there is one matter I should like to ask about. The radio station at Watrous, Saskatchewan, has been known as CBK-Watrous since its establishment, but in the last year this has been changed to CBK-Saskatchewan. Watrous was the original name and Watrous is the location. What was the reason for making this change?


James Joseph McCann: I suggest that Saskatchewan is better known than Watrous.

Supply-National Revenue


John George Diefenbaker: Do you call it Manitoba and Alberta?


James Joseph McCann: Yes.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: The minister has told us that the government has not made up its mind regarding the implementation of the Massey report, but he leads us to believe that this item of $1,500,000 is a partial implementation of that report. He states that that is the reason for changing from a-loan to a grant, but I would suggest that the reason is more obvious. For some years the C.B.C. has been running a deficit, and this past year that deficit amounted to $900,000. The C.B.C. already owes the government $8,400,000 and if we continue to make loans the corporation will continue to run into debt. It is not expected that the loans will ever be repaid and we might as well call them what they really are, that is, grants.


Heber Harold Hatfield: The department has made provision to supply Quebec and Ontario with television from a station at Toronto and one at Montreal. What about the maritime provinces? What about western Canada?


James Joseph McCann: I cannot state when you are going to get television in the maritime provinces.


Heber Harold Hatfield: We pay our share of the cost of these other stations.


James Joseph McCann: That may be true, but you cannot put in all these things at once. We are going as far as we think it is prudent to go at the present time in building the stations at Montreal and Toronto. When those stations have been built and are in operation I presume that the policy with respect to future stations will be determined and announced.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Is there any arrangement for United States stations to supply the maritime provinces?


James Joseph McCann: I do not know. That is a question for the technicians.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister has attributed to the recommendation on page 295 of the Massey commission report the change from the loan basis to the grant basis. Is he prepared to indicate what policy the government is going to follow with reference to the sums that are now standing as owing by the C.B.C. to the government, amounting to something over $8 million?


James Joseph McCann: No, I am not prepared to indicate what is the government policy.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In view of what the minister said with reference to television in the maritime provinces and the western provinces

may I ask him if the corporation is now prepared to entertain applications from private applicants who may be willing to establish television on available channels to serve those areas?


James Joseph McCann: I understand that the policy of the board of governors of the corporation is that applications will be deferred for the time being on account of the scarcity of materials, steel and workers.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is a new one. The reason the C.B.C. has given for sitting on these applications and holding them frozen for the last two and a half years is that they were waiting for the Massey report. We have the Massey report, and now we have this latest excuse for continuing the freeze on applications. If the C.B.C., for reasons that may commend themselves to the board of governors, is not prepared to go beyond establishing two stations at Montreal and one at Toronto, set up, of course, with public moneys contributed by taxpayers in all parts of Canada, including the west and the maritime provinces, is it not about time that such persons as are willing to risk their money in the development of television in those areas should be permitted to do so if they are willing to take their chances on getting steel and other necessary equipment? That is not a reason for refusing to deal with applications.


James Joseph McCann: There have been no applications to establish television from the maritimes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is the corporation prepared to say that it is willing to entertain applications from private applicants for television on channels to be assigned by the corporation?


James Joseph McCann: I made an answer to that, that the policy is to defer these applications for the time being owing to certain scarcities.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: How many applications have been received from responsible individuals throughout Canada who are prepared to start television stations?


James Joseph McCann: I am told there have been about ten.


George Randolph Pearkes: Any from Vancouver?


James Joseph McCann: One from New Westminster, none from Vancouver.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Is the licence fee for a television set any different from the other fee?


James Joseph McCann: There is no licence fee for a television set because we have not established television. It would be most unfair to ask people to pay a licence fee for television receiving sets when they are receiving television from another country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member should not suggest it as he may put ideas in the minister's head.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Is there going to be any difference in the licence fee when we do have television in Canada?


James Joseph McCann: I do not know.


Mr. Higgins:: I have one question that rather bothers me. An application was made for a new radio station in Newfoundland and included in it was an application for the required steel. As you know, steel has been highly controlled. I am informed, and I verily believe, as we say in the old law applications, that this steel has been granted to the corporation making the application, which corporation, as the minister is probably aware, is known as the Sunday Herald. Mr. Geoff Stirling and Mr. Don Jameson have been granted permission by C.B.C. to operate a radio station, and an allocation of steel has been given. The minister should be aware of what that station is going to do in so far as broadcasting is concerned, and what the reason for it is. I do not need to enlarge on it. There have been so many acrimonious debates in the house in recent days that I will not go into that. Will the minister tell me how they got the steel and why they got permission?*


James Joseph McCann: I do not know how they got the steel. They make an application for the steel to the Department of Trade and Commerce, and I suppose either the steel controller was able to give it to them or they bought the steel privately. I have known of one or two who have obtained permission and were able to buy secondhand steel from a radio station which had previously purchased new steel and then had a change in frequency or in power.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I am informed-and I will not qualify it by saying that I know-that permission was given to buy the steel following the time that steel was put under 'control. I know that I made application for steel myself to the controller for another very worth-while project in the province of Newfoundland, a stadium, but it was not considered sufficiently worth-while to involve permission. However, since that time permission has been granted for this radio station which, from what I hear, will chiefly broadcast items that might interest the party of which the minister is a member. I merely make that remark. I do not know.


James Joseph McCann: We get the inference too.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In connection with item 564, the sum of $1,500,000 for the development of television, will the minister put on the record
* (See also page 4996.)
Supply-National Revenue -I am not asking him to take the time to read the figures-the budget submitted by C.B.C. that contemplates the need for that sum of money for this purpose?


James Joseph McCann: We can get that for you.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is it understood that the committee will give leave to have that printed in Hansard in order to save time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Joseph McCann: It is as follows:
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Distribution of Television Funds
Loans
Authorized by Appropriation Act, No. 7,
1949, Vote 934	 $4,500,000
Requested through Vote 564, 1951/52 ..	1,500,000


[Stage Direction]
Expenditures
Capital Construction Projects (a) Montreal
Studio building, equipment, and
technical facilities	 $1,512,000
Transmitter building and equipment, antenna tower and technical facilities	 675,000
(b) Toronto
Combined studio, office and transmitter building, equipment, antenna tower and technical facilities	  1,995,000
(c) Contingency (for both locations) 68,000
Total capital assignment	 $4,250,000
Operations
(a)	To provide for personnel training, research and experimental TV production prior to the start
of regular telecasting	 $ 900,000
(b)	To finance TV programming during the first 6 months of operations and to provide for additional facilities which may be required
at that time	 850,000
Total operations assignment	 $1,750,000
Grand total (operations and capital) $6,000,000
Donald Methuen Fleming: I have one final question. In view of the discussion today and the abundant proof it has given of the need for detailed study of this whole subject, will the minister undertake that at the fall session of the house the government will propose the establishment of the special committee on broadcasting, and that the relevant parts of the report of the Massey commission, including the chapters on radio broadcasting and television, will be referred to that committee for study and report?


James Joseph McCann: I can give no such undertaking. I will bring it to the attention of

Supply-Fisheries
my colleagues that it has been suggested by the hon. member for Eglinton that the radio committee should meet in the fall.


John George Diefenbaker: In view of that, I have to put a further question with respect to the applicants. Will the minister give the committee the names of the applicants for television licences and the amounts that they are prepared to expend? He mentioned ten.


James Joseph McCann: Actually the applicants do not make application to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. They make application to the Department of Transport which is responsible for the administration of the Radio Act. On recommendation of the Department of Transport, after they have gone through the preliminaries of technical details, they come to the board of governors of the C.B.C. These applications have actually' not been made to the broadcasting corporation.


John George Diefenbaker: And the broadcasting corporation has no information about them at all?


James Joseph McCann: I would not say that. You referred to applications made to us, and they are not made to us.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not going to worry over where they are made, to the minister or to the corporation. They must come to the corporation. What applications have been made, and what is the amount that each of these companies was prepared to expend on television?


James Joseph McCann: We will try to get that information for the hon. member.


[Stage Direction]
Items agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Field services-
154. To provide for the destruction of harbour and gray seals, $30,000.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: Item 154 is the item which deals with the destruction of harbour and gray seals. I note with regret that the amount allowed has been cut by 50 per cent. I think we all appreciate the need for economy at a time like this, but I would respectfully submit to the government that there is no economy in permitting predatory animals to continue to exist and to multiply. I should like to read to the committee a short resolution on the subject passed at the last convention of the Prince Rupert fishermen's co-operative association. This deals with our particular menace on the north Pacific coast, the sea lion. The resolution reads:
Whereas the sea lion menace to commercial fishing on this coast has increased continuously;

Therefore be it resolved that this meeting requests the federal Department of Fisheries to institute a program for the effective removal of this menace on the B.C. coast.
The same body has suggested to the Department of Fisheries that if the department would make ammunition free and available to the fishermen they themselves would do their best to reduce the number of sea lions. I endorse that recommendation, but I would suggest it is only at the most a stopgap. I should like to see the government give serious consideration to making a substantial contribution toward the effort if not to wipe out at least to materially reduce the sea lion menace which is causing so much damage to the salmon industry on the Pacific coast.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Coming from the other end of the country, I should like to endorse what the hon. member for Skeena has said. We do not have sea lions, although we have a lot of other queer animals, and we have harbour seals in great numbers. I entirely agree with the idea that if we are going to conserve salmon we have got to cut down on the sea lions on the west coast and on seals on our coast. It is not too clear as to how the people of my province can secure the bounty. I believe that they must supply the jaws of the seals. I think that is the position. I believe the idea is that they got so much for pups and so much for adults. Maybe the minister will confirm that.


Hon. R. W. Mayhew (Minister of Fisheries):: So far as the bounty on seals in British Columbia is concerned, we have an amount of $15,000, but in addition to that bounty we are also carrying on the destruction of sea lions. We intend to initiate in British Columbia next year a campaign of our own for the destruction of seals. It is quite evident that the bounty system will not take care of this problem, so we intend to tackle it from another angle. The reason why I say the bounty system is not sufficient is that last year we had $60,000 in this vote, and only $19,000 was paid out by way of bounty.
This has not applied to Newfoundland up to the present because of the very large sealing industry in that area and because we have not been able to discover any way to identify the harbour seal from the seal that is caught commercially. Investigations are going on to see whether we can determine this, and if we can do so we will pay the bounty. However, I understand that in Newfoundland harbour seals are not as plentiful as on the Pacific coast and in other parts of the maritime provinces. In addition we are continuing to carry an item of $5,000 for the hunting of seals in the estuary of the Miramichi river.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Do I understand you are not going to recognize the bounties being paid for what we call harbour seals, those that go up the rivers in Newfoundland? Will you pay for those or will you not? There is a bounty now.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I said we could not apply it at the present time because we cannot distinguish those seals from the commercial seals.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Who is to determine that?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: We are endeavouring to work it out. Some of our biologists are working on it now.


Mr. McLure:: What was the bounty paid last year in Prince Edward Island for harbour seals? I see there is a reduction in the item from $60,000 to $30,000.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: There were 121 seals
destroyed; bounty, $680.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: And that bounty will be paid again this year?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: - There is no change in the bounty.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fisheries research board-
155. Headquarters administration, $89,814.
Mr. Hodgson:: Last summer I had occasion to take a trip to the west coast, at which time I visited the research and experimental station at Nanaimo. I inspected that station from one end to the other, and was very much intrigued with what I saw. From what I learned from Dr. Hart, who is in charge, I believe that station is going to do great work for the fishing industry of Canada. I want to tell the minister that I was treated most courteously, and I would wish him to extend to Dr. Hart my appreciation of the treatment he gave me that day. He showed me everything that was to be seen and could not have been nicer to me. My visit was very enlightening; it was an education in itself, and I wanted to express my appreciation to the minister.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: It will give me great pleasure to convey your message.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
International commissions-
158. To provide for Canadian share of expenses of the International fisheries commission appointed under treaty dated January 29, 1937, between Canada and the United States for the preservation of the north Pacific halibut fisheries, $50,000.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: This item deals with the north Pacific halibut fisheries conservation treaty, and I would like to mention two
Supply-Fisheries
matters briefly to the minister and the committee. It will be recalled by some hon. members that they suffered through quite a long speech by me a year ago advocating that two seasons be established for the fishing of north Pacific halibut. Since making that speech last year I have found that owing to an interpretation by the United States of the present treaty, I understand, it is impossible for the commission to recommend two distinct seasons, though I say without fear of contradiction that it is the desire of the great majority of the fishermen on the British Columbia coast that there be two seasons. However, the commission did find that under the terms of the treaty they were able to set aside and open later in the year two small areas for fishing, more or less as an experimental project. These were areas 2B and 2C. This experiment is for the purpose of finding out whether there are fish running on the banks later in the summer which are not subject to fishing during the usual season in May, because if that is so we would establish the fact that there is a run of halibut that has never been fished under normal conditions.
My reason for mentioning this matter at this time is to express to the department on my own behalf and on behalf of the large number of halibut fishermen interested our sincere appreciation of this experimental step and our hope that it will lead to quite an increase in the amount of halibut that eventually will be taken on the Pacific coast.
The other matter I wish to mention briefly in connection with these conserved waters is of some delicacy, and I hope I may not say anything so foolish or exaggerated as to cause embarrassment to our government or any other. The fishing industry on the Pacific coast, not only in Canada but also in the United States and Alaska, is quite worried over what is to be the situation when the state of war with Japan finally comes to an end. I am not going to weary the committee by reading it, but I have in my hand the last issue of the American Journal of International Law, containing an article written by Edward W. Allan of Seattle, who happens to be chairman of the international fisheries commission. Mr. Allan expresses grave fears as to the outcome if we come to the end of state of war with Japan without making definite provision for the protection of those waters which are now being conserved at the expense of the governments of Canada and the United States, and as to which the fishermen of Canada, the United States and Alaska are subjected to strict regulations. So while I realize this is not the Department of

Supply-Fisheries
External Affairs, I hope the fisheries department will keep this matter very much to the fore so that when we come to settle our more serious disputes with Japan we may not find that we have neglected to protect one of our very vital natural resources.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
159. To provide for Canadian share of expenses of the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission appointed under treaty dated May 26, 1930, between Canada and the United States for the protection, preservation and extension of the sock-eye salmon fisheries of the Fraser river system, $166,350.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: This will toe my last appearance tonight. This item has to do with another matter of international co-operation. It provides for our share of the expenses of the international salmon fisheries commission, and I want to bring one aspect of this to the attention of the committee because I believe a certain amount of misinformation has gone abroad. I think hon. members will know that the Aluminum Company of Canada is moving into British Columbia and undertaking hydroelectric developments which involve the expenditure of many millions of dollars and the building up of a very large industry. It is feared, and this fear has been expressed very forcibly in many quarters, that the activities of this company will have a disastrous effect upon the salmon industry of British Columbia. No one could be more concerned over the matter than the salmon fishermen themselves. So in order that the record may be kept straight I should like to read to the committee a formal expression of opinion on the subject by the Prince Rupert fishermen's co-operative association which I understand, though I have not the notice before me, was endorsed by the British Columbia fishermen's co-operative. The resolution reads:
Whereas it is proposed by the provincial government to permit the use of our water power resources for industrial development, such as indicated by the proposed aluminum project, and
Whereas we appreciate the worthwhileness of such industrial development, and
Whereas the livelihood of the fishermen of this province depends upon adequate protection of our fishery resources;
Therefore be it resolved that this meeting go on record as urging the fullest and continued cooperation between the provincial government and federal Department of Fisheries in seeing that the fishery resources are adequately protected.
The fact that such a resolution should be passed by the leading salmon fishermen's organization on the Pacific coast proves beyond any doubt that it is possible for the hydroelectric development and the salmon industry to live side by side without either having an adverse effect upon the other. I would ask the minister and this government

to bear in mind the desirability of bringing to British Columbia such developments as are proposed by the Aluminum Company of Canada. They should give them every possible assistance. They should remember that the livelihood and the life savings of many of our fishermen are tied up in the salmon industry and that it will be their delicate task to make certain that the interests both of the new industry and of the established fishermen are adequately protected, as can be done.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Chairman, I am told that we should follow the standing orders and rules of the house. At six o'clock I asked for the unanimous consent of the committee to proceed with the business of the house at eight o'clock, and that we would not take up private bills. But I am told that the decision of the committee would not be binding. To comply with the provisions of standing order 15, paragraph 2, Mr. Chairman will now leave the chair.


Louis-René Beaudoin: To comply with standing order No. 15, paragraph 2, I now leave the chair.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Private and public bills.


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: The
order for private and public bills having been disposed of, the house will resume consideration of the matter under discussion at six o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES International commissions-
159. To provide for Canadian share of expenses of the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission appointed under treaty dated May 26, 1930, between Canada and the United States for the protection, preservation and extension of the sockeye salmon fisheries of the Fraser river system, $166,350.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
International commissions-[DOT]
162.	To provide for Canadian share of expenses of the international commission for the northwest Atlantic fisheries appointed pursuant to international conventions for the investigation, protection and conservation of the fisheries of the northwest Atlantic ocean, dated at Washington, February 8, 1949, $2,500.
Gordon Francis Higgins: I sense the humour of the
house and I will not make any oration on this matter. But I would ask the minister if he can tell me and tell the committee what

has been the last decision as a result of this conference on the conservation of the northwest Atlantic fisheries.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The last we had on that was the meeting in Washington about a month ago when the committee was set up with a United States chairman and a British vicechairman. The headquarters for the time being is at St. Andrews, N.B. During this coming year the committee will investigate the question of where the permanent quarters of the commission will be.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Apart from that question of
headquarters, have there not been decisions about conservation? Can he tell me that?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Scientific groups are meeting constantly on that problem. We have no reports from them yet.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Has there been any decision
on the Grand Banks, Newfoundland?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: They are studying the
Grand Banks fisheries as well.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
163.	To provide for operation and maintenance of Newfoundland bait service, $392,444.
Gordon Francis Higgins: May I ask the minister if
he will just try to give us some details briefly? There seems to be a considerable decrease. Why is that?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The decrease in that amount is due to the purchase of bait. Last year the amount that was in the estimates was much larger than was actually needed. This time the amount is, we think, more realistic but sufficient to take care of the requirements.


Clarence Gillis: That particular question with
regard to bait is bothersome along the whole east coast. A bad situation exists. For the last few months because of the mild winter this past year there has been a great shortage of ice. There is practically an emergency in the whole industry. I suppose that Newfoundland is affected the same as Nova Scotia. I know that SOS's have been going to the department for some considerable time now. I am wondering if the department could do something to relieve what looks like a bad situation. Ice would have to be shipped in, according to the reports I read in the press. Have any representations been made as to the seriousness of the situation?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Yes; representations were
made to us about the seriousness of the situation just about the time it occurred. The department has done about everything it possibly could do. We made a complete survey as to what the shortage of ice would
Supply-Fisheries
be in the province and located where sufficient ice-making equipment could be obtained. The industry has installed several of these machines. Priorities have been obtained on others which the industry can have if they want to go ahead and put in their ice-freezing plants themselves. They have done a great deal but they have not gone all the way. There are still some shortages in some places. But if any of the operators want more ice-freezing equipment, we know where it can be secured.


Gordon Francis Higgins: This is just for the information of hon. members of the committee and not to embarrass the minister. Hon. members probably have definite ideas about Newfoundland and as to what type of country it is. But it is interesting to note that this year one of the cargoes brought from Maine to Newfoundland was a cargo of ice because we did not have any ice there.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
164.	To provide for the extension of educational work in co-operative producing and selling among fishermen, 880,000.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I should like the minister to give us an idea how this co-operative selling among fishermen is carried on. This item has been in the estimates for a decade of years. I was wondering how much of it was spent each year. Will the minister give us an idea of the work, and how it is carried on among the fishermen in purchasing and selling among themselves?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The full amount is $80,000. It is divided between St. Francis Xavier university, $46,000; social economic service, university of Quebec, $24,000; and the university of British Columbia, $10,000; making a total of $80,000.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: I just want to bring two matters to the attention of the minister under this item. First I want to congratulate the minister and the officials of his department on their earnest endeavour to try to improve conditions in the fishing industry. There are, however, two things that I should like to bring to his attention while the fisheries estimates are under discussion. One of them is this, and I realize that there are few fish dealers who will agree with the statement I am going to make. There is a great spread between the prices that are paid fishermen and the prices that the consumers are being forced to pay in this country today. There are many glaring examples of unreasonable prices being charged for fish at a time when meat prices are high and when the fishing industry might have come into the place

Supply-Fisheries
that we would wish to see it. For instance, last year in the county that I represent, pollack-which is an extremely fine fish and is caught in great quantities in that county- was sold for as little as one-half cent a pound. I do not mean that just a few hundred pounds were sold at that price. Tons and tons were sold for half a cent a pound, and a cent a pound was considered a good price. All during the winter months they were asking 17 and 18 cents a pound for that same fish in the dry state. Now ground fish, cod, is being sold at 2J cents a pound, which we had to fight for. It takes about 3 pounds of cod to make a pound of fillets. I noticed in the Ottawa paper just a night or two ago that cod fillets were 47 cents a pound in the city of Ottawa. The fishermen did not get more than 7 cents or 8 cents for that pound of fillet. Who got the spread of 600 per cent and 700 per cent between the price that the fishermen received and the price that the consumers were obliged to pay? There is something wrong somewhere. There is something wrong in our organization. I would think that it might be well to investigate this matter. I do believe the spread is too great. I do not believe there is any reasonable excuse for it.
The price of meat during the last two years has been the highest of any time in the world's history. That period would have been a very fine time for the fishing industry to have put their products into the homes of the Canadian people, where we might have been able to keep them when meats were cheaper again. But the price that the consumers are obliged to pay has prohibited in many, many cases any great demand for fish.
There is just one other item that I shall speak on briefly because I realize the committee is getting weary and wants to get home. The Department of Fisheries has given great assistance to the maritime provinces, and I believe to other parts of Canada, in connection with small draggers and equipment for the fishermen to use in order that they might increase their production. With that idea I am not quarrelling at all. I think it is a fine idea, but if after the fish are caught markets cannot be found it does not bring about the results that we would like to have. In the particular section I spoke of where these fish were sold last summer at J cent and 1 cent a pound, fishermen were allowed to fish only about two days a week. There was no market for the fish three days a week. The catch at that time was quite good. They could have made a very fine living, but there was no market. I have tried to convince the department which

works through the provincial government, that young men-I do not mean young men without experience in the fishing industry, but young men with extensive experience in the fishing industry who have asked for financial assistance to establish fish curing plants-should be given assistance. I have brought this matter to the attention of the department which, as I say, works through the provincial government, and I have not been able to get any financial assistance for these men, many of whom I know personally. I have worked with them on the water for many, many years. They know how to cure fish and they know how to market them after they are cured.
There is one case-I will not mention any names-of two young men who have been in the industry for 25 or 30 years. This past winter they put every dollar they had into a fish curing plant. When the plant is completed they will be short of funds to cure their fish this summer. In the salt fish industry it means that you must have several thousand dollars to carry on because your catch will not be sold until the coming winter. I have not been able to get any financial assistance for them.
I do not want to give the impression that I am criticizing the assistance given to the small draggers. With that I agree. But at the same time, increasing their catch, if markets cannot be found, will not help the situation. I do believe that men of experience, who are reliable, and need assistance to get established in the fishing industry should have every bit of encouragement this department can give, financially and otherwise.


Gordon Francis Higgins: May I endorse my hon.
friend's remarks? That particular province has always been known to us in Newfoundland as the province of the herring chokers. Apart from that he is a practical fisherman. He knows what he is talking about. I merely talk in theory. He knows what he is talking about. I am quite certain that what he says is absolutely correct. I entirely endorse it, but I have one other point I want to bring up on this item. I do want to bring it to the attention of the minister because it comes right home to my own little home town. I hold in my hand a copy of the Evening Telegram of June 23, which contains the following item:
Fishermen dump 25,000 pounds of fresh fish.
St. John's fishermen, owners of eight boats, dumped 25,000 pounds of fish yesterday after they were unable to sell it to Job Bros. Ltd., according to Joseph Gray, 1X6 Duckworth street, a spokesman for the group.
Mr. Gray said that the men had been told recently that they would be able to sell their fish, and now

they are not sure what will happen. If there is no sale for the fish, about 30 boats, used for handlining off St. John's would have to be tied up.
The other night I was talking with the Minister of Public Works about certain work being done in St. John's. He told me that in his opinion there was nothing to do in St. John's because St. John's was more or less a city and they were looking after the outlying settlements. But, Mr. Chairman, right in St. John's today there is still quite a number of fishermen, and the article I have just read is the proof of it. They are right in my own riding of St. John's East. I do not ask -the minister to be a messiah or anything of that kind, but cannot something be done? In this day and age it seems an awful shame to have good food going to waste, and that something cannot be done merely because the fresh fish plants cannot take the fish. The fish are there to be caught, and it seems an awful pity to throw them away. I do not think the minister can answer it.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Will the hon. member for St. John's East give me the date? What is the date of the paper?


Gordon Francis Higgins: June 23.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: This is the first that we have heard about it.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I do not blame the minister for not knowing of it.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: This year there have been some very early runs and some very large runs of fish coming in at odd spots, and this may be one of the occasions when they had an extra heavy run and were unable to take care of the fish in the quantity that came in. That is almost sure to happen occasionally in some area or another, but we shall make inquiries from our office down there and find out whether it is occurring now.


Gordon Francis Higgins: It is not the fault of the minister's department. I am not attaching any blame to the department in any way. What has happened really is the result of conditions in the world. As hon. members know we have had great changes in St. John's. We have had a United States base, and as a result of the Americans coming in a lot of the fishing flakes have had to disappear, and the entire fishing industry has had to change to fresh fish. A lot of people still fish in St. John's even though the Minister of Public Works does not believe it. When they have a surplus of fish if they cannot sell them to the fresh fish plants it does seem to me an ungodly thing to have to throw them away. Cannot something be done to take care of that in the future? I do not ask the minister for an answer because he really cannot answer it.
Supply-Fisheries


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I do not want to delay the committee, but this is tied up with something we are trying to do at the present time. At Bay Bulls we are putting in a light salted drier, which we hope will be successful; then when the fish comes in in quantity, such as the hon. member has mentioned, it can be taken and put into storage and eventually salted and dried in this drier when they have time to do it. May I say this tonight, and I say it for a purpose, because I think there are a lot of people not paying enough attention to the opportunity in the fishing industry in the province of Newfoundland. The catch of fish last year in Newfoundland amounted to 642 million pounds, mostly cod. It was 662 million pounds in the three maritime provinces of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. In British Columbia it was 600 million pounds. The province of Newfoundland produced one-third of the fish caught in Canada. If that is not a challenge to people even in Newfoundland and the people from outside Newfoundland to go down there and put in plants sufficient to take care of the requirements and put the fish up in the way it should be put up so that it could be used by people not only in Canada but in the United States, or wherever they want to use it, I do not know what a challenge is. There is room for more than one. There is room for three or four good plants in Newfoundland, and it would be economically sound if they were to open. I say that today for the sake of encouraging someone down there, some people in private enterprise, to study the situation in Newfoundland, so that the dumping of fish might not occur again.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
165.	To provide for administration expenses of the Fisheries Prices Support Act, 1S44, $81,042.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: A few months ago the United States asked for tenders for a large quantity of fish-for their army, I believe it was. Was anything done towards getting that order completed?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: We know of no such order. If there is, it would be through the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Some of the plants were asked to tender on it. I thought the department was handling it.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: It was not through this department. It might have been through the Department of Trade and Commerce, which looks after the selling end.

Supply-Fisheries


Gordon Francis Higgins: Mr. Chairman, all Newfoundland members are greatly encouraged by the attitude of the minister and his associates in their approach to Newfoundland. So that this may be clear to some of the people in Newfoundland I should like to put on record what he said recently in this connection. I am sure he will not mind my doing this.
This was an interview he gave in Newfoundland on February 12, in which he said:
We regard-
And I bow to the imperial "we"-
"We regard the fisheries in Newfoundland as the cornerstone of their economy, and so far as possible we are going to keep that industry as the cornerstone, and to build on it as much as we can," said Mr. Mayhew. "I know that we will have the co-operation of the province-we can't go far without it. We don't want to apply anything having the appearance of a relief measure," he added. "We want to build up the industry to stand on its own feet, giving a decent standard of living to those engaged in it, whether on sea or shore."
No part of Canada was neglected in the federal fisheries program, the minister pointed out, and "certainly not Newfoundland, where fishing means more to its people than in any other province."
Those are the feelings of the minister, and that is what the Newfoundland members are interested in. While we do not say very much about fishing, we do want to talk about it now and again.
The minister says:
We want to build up the industry to stand on its own feet, giving a decent standard of living to those engaged in it, whether on sea or shore.
In the report of the fisheries prices support board for the year 1950-51, which has been put in members' boxes, there are set out in the preamble the powers of the board, and the fact that there is a working fund of $25 million. It says that there are two methods which can be used, and describes them in this way:
These methods are (a) the purchase of any fisheries product at a prescribed price and (b) the making of deficiency payments to producers of fisheries product equal to the difference between a prescribed price and the average price at which such product was sold during a specified period. The act furthermore directs that in prescribing prices, the board shall endeavour to ensure adequate and stable returns for fisheries by promoting orderly adjustment from war to peace conditions and shall endeavour to secure a fair relationship between the returns from fisheries and those from other occupations.
On that point the minister on October 27 last made a broadcast over the C.B.C. stations in Newfoundland in which he outlined price support for both types of fish, that is Labrador and shore fish. I have put this proposition to him before. It may be that he has answered it, but he has not answered it to my satisfaction. I hope I do not seem to inflict punishment upon him by asking for a definite answer.

On the occasion to which I have referred he said:
We would ask the fishermen to move the fish under our assurance that the prices support board will review the shore fish situation as the season advances. Should it happen that the fall in price to fishermen has been so great as to merit support action, the board would recommend to government that a deficiency payment be made on shore fish. I am confident that, with this assurance, the fishermen and the salt codfish association will be able to arrange a price that will allow the fishermen to move their fish into the exporters' hands.
In that connection we find at page 9 of the report of the fisheries prices support board these paragraphs:
Although the board could have been authorized to purchase the Labrador production instead of guaranteeing the advance price to fishermen, the latter course was adopted in the hope that market conditions would improve to the extent that the year's operation could be conducted without loss thus avoiding the necessity of direct support action by the board.
As the final results of the year's operations in both the Labrador and the shore fisheries would not be known until after June 30, 1951, the end of the marketing year, it was not possible, during the period under review, to determine the precise amount of prices support expenditure that would prove necessary in the fiscal year 1951-52.
With that preamble, may I ask the minister this: Am I safe in saying that he does plan to support the price of fish last year between the difference in what the price was and what was obtained? As I said before, the wording is "the difference between a prescribed price and the average price". What is "a prescribed price"; and what is "the average price"? What is the meaning of the statement of the fisheries prices support board, that there will be prices support this year if it should prove necessary?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I can quite often answer a question, but I find it difficult to answer a speech. That is the position I am in at the moment. I can say this, that out of 15,000 forms we sent out asking for returns, to date about 700 are in. So that if we are late in making settlement or presenting the problem, it is not our fault; it is the fault of the people who are delaying in sending in the returns. I hope the hon. member's good newspapers will urge upon the people to get their returns in. Then, very shortly after that, this whole question can be submitted.
There are three problems involved: one is the price to the Labrador fishermen on their ordinary cure, and the price on their semidried, and also the price to the shore fishermen. None of these can be settled until we are able to get returns in and to know exactly what the position is. But the promise will be carried out just as quickly as we can do it.


Gordon Francis Higgins: What was the precise amount of the prescribed price for last year, and what was the average price?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: There was no prescribed price last year. There was a price we fixed for Labrador fish at $7 a quintal.


Gordon Francis Higgins: No prescribed price for shore fish?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: No; no prescribed price for shore fish.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Was there any support price for shore fish?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: We said we would examine into it when we got the returns. For the last two and a half months our men have been down there trying to get information from the shore fishermen.


Gordon Francis Higgins: When does the minister expect to make that report?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Whenever the Newfoundland people send in their returns they will be tabulated. We will not be twelve hours behind. If they flood in next week we are ready for them.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General services-
691. Industrial development services-further amount required, $15,000.
Mr. Ashbourne:: There are a few remarks I should like to make, particularly in relation to the men who prosecute the Labrador fisheries. I happen to have the honour to represent Labrador. Quite a few of the fishermen in my riding go to Labrador to engage in that branch of the Newfoundland fisheries. I think the minister will readily agree that with the price of $7 per quintal which was paid last year for ordinary cured fish it is hardly an economic proposition. Even though some of these fishermen sustained losses last year they are going back this year. They are getting their vessels ready and are going to carry on those operations again. We in Newfoundland have carried on the Labrador fisheries for a great number of years. It is of great concern to us, particularly since we have joined confederation, that there should be such a serious decline in the Labrador fisheries.
I am not one who would advocate the carrying on of anything that was found to be uneconomical. I would point out to the minister that some of these fishermen have invested practically everything they own in building their schooners, making their cod traps and boats and providing the other equipment necessary to engage in these fisheries. These men leave the mainland of
Supply-Fisheries
Newfoundland and go north and take up stations, while others take their vessels to the Labrador coast and catch the fish by means of traps. A large number of fish come into the Labrador coast and many people think these fisheries are a bit of a gold mine, but this is not so because of the quality of the fish.
The fish come into the Labrador coast in large quantities in search of food and they are readily taken in traps and if the fisherman happens to be there at the right time it does not take him long to get a full load, particularly in good weather. Much of our trouble has been due to currency problems. If we could regain some of the Spanish market many of our problems would be solved. When I was travelling in south Spain they told me that they preferred the Labrador fish, whereas I found that in north Spain they preferred the Norwegian fish which is larger. No stone should be left unturned to find means of trying to get back the Spanish market.
It would be of great help to the shore fisheries if we could get back into the Brazilian market. There was a time when Brazil bought 400,000 quintals of fish a year, much of that Labrador fish which was dried and prepared for that market. Following up the investigations that are made I should like the minister to make a particular study of the Labrador fisheries and if necessary provide some form of assistance in order to help this new industry. I realize that time is at a premium in the committee tonight and it is not my intention to speak at any length. If we could get additional markets for salted fish it would provide a great boost for Newfoundland, with resultant benefits to these hardy fishermen who depend upon the harvest from the sea for a livelihood for themselves and their families.


Mr. Gibson:: This very peculiar word "quintal" has been used quite often and I should like to know if it is English or French. We talk in terms of Canadian dollars and I think we should be told just what quintal means so that we will be better informed next year.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: A quintal is 112 pounds.


John Lambert Gibson: Is it English or French?


George Clyde Nowlan: It is maritime.


Gordon Francis Higgins: With the evident interest the minister has shown in fisheries 1 am going to ask the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay as the senior member of the Newfoundland members not in the cabinet to arrange for a degree of codology to be conferred upon the minister, if there is such a doctorate in Newfoundland.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Post Office
692. To provide for transportation, dressing and dyeing and other expenses incidental to receiving and disposing of fur seal skins accruing to Canada pursuant to provisional fur seal agreement between Canada and the United States by exchange of notes dated December 26, 1947-further amount required, $300,000.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The total vote for this purpose seems to be greatly in excess of last year. Is part of this to be expended in the following year?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The price of fur seals has gone up considerably and therefore we have more duty, excise and sales tax to pay. This item is to provide for that difference.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
318. Departmental administration, $951,541.
Agar Rodney Adamson: There is just one thing I should like to say with regard to these post office items. I refer to the dropping of the term "royal mail". I do so because the Post Office Department is a government service. It carries the King's cipher, George Rex, and the arms, which are the royal arms of Canada because they bear the crown, the symbol of the monarchy. I raise this matter for another reason. Nobody is more keen on his Canadianism than I am, but the more I travel, the more I see of other countries on this earth, the more I appreciate the fact that we have a parliamentary system of government whose head is a monarch, the King. When an offence is committed against the laws of this country the accused is charged and the charge is "Rex v. John Doe". It is not "Canada v. John Doe". It is not the republican form, "The people v. John Doe". It is Rex v. John Doe. I feel that the dropping of the prefix "royal" is a regrettable and a retrograde step.
I say this in all sincerity because it is not helping our Canadian nationalism. We as Canadians have a peculiar nationalism. We are not republicans and we are not colonials. We have a country of our own, our own parliament and our own king. Those things are things that we are very proud of and things which we should treasure and cherish. The dropping of the word "royal" is not very ii portant in some ways, but I consider it is t) imendously important because it is a symptom not of a great and growing Canadianism but of an inferiority complex that resents the King perhaps because he is an Englishman and lives in London. I say this in all sincerity and not to criticize anything in the Canada post office, but I would sincerely ask the Postmaster General to consider calling the department the Royal Canadian Post Office. I understand there is the Royal Australian Post Office and the Royal New

Zealand Post Office, and I feel that the dropping of the prefix "royal" does not aid us. In fact it belittles our stature as a free and independent nation.
With that in mind I sincerely ask the Postmaster General to give the matter consideration. I say this as a Canadian of the fifth generation, a Canadian on both sides of my family, and I ask that we retain the prefix "royal" with regard to all our federal services, whether it be the Royal Canadian Navy, the Royal Canadian Air Force, or anything else. It should be the King's Royal Mail.


Mr. Rinfret:: With respect to this matter, the postal act was passed in 1867 and was called the Post Office Act. The words "royal mail" were discontinued twenty-five years ago by the Hon. Charles Murphy while he was postmaster general.


Major James William Coldwell: I should like to ask the minister two or three questions. First of all I want to ask him something about the service to Goldfields. Since I mentioned that to him the other day, I am just going to remind him of it now so that he may tell the committee about it. He said he would get the information and tell the committee and the people who are interested in this mail service what improvements, if any, have been made. I also wish to ask the minister who is the postmaster now at lie a la Crosse. The minister will recollect that some time ago I placed a question on the order paper, and hon. members will probably recall that I also asked the Minister of Transport certain questions regarding the building of a telephone line in that part of Saskatchewan. He found that Mr. Marion, who is a member of the legislature for that part of Saskatchewan, and who has pretty well dominated that area for a generation or so, had built the line without authorization, and that upon investigation the mileage and pay had to be reduced. That however is not the point. The point is that recently a case was tried in the city of Prince Albert as the result of a charge brought by the Postmaster General or the Post Office Department against _ the postmaster, as he was called, at lie a la Crosse, a man of some education and of Indian descent.
He was accused of having converted some $1,800 or $1,900 to his own use. I have not seen all the evidence nor have I been able to read the entire charge of the judge, Chief Justice Brown, at the conclusion of the trial. Newspaper reports tell us that the chief justice said that the post office funds had been mixed up with other funds in the store, and after deliberating for ten minutes the accused was found not guilty by the jury. I have quite a file on this particular case, and I do not propose to read extracts from

it now. I have letters from residents in the area who believe that this man was really the victim of wrongful accusation, and that the affairs of the post office and the store were so intermixed that nobody could find out what had happened to this particular money.
The accused has been found not guilty. Now I wonder if the department is going to bring a charge against anyone else who may be under suspicion, in order to find out where this fairly substantial sum of money actually went. I would like to know also who is the postmaster at this point at the present time in place of the man who was said to be the former postmaster; and I put it in that way because while he was appointed by the Post Office Department he was an employee of Mr. Marion; the post office was in Mr. Marion's store and the funds were apparently kept in the same till from which payments were made for services rendered to the owner and storekeeper. I noted that when this man was relieved of his appointment the wife of Mr. Marion was appointed temporary postmistress pending the selection of permanent postmaster. That was some eighteen months ago, and I should like to know the situation there now. As I say, I have received a number of communications concerning this case, and I think the matter is one the department should carefully review and explain so that the citizens of that area, as well as hon. members who may be interested, may understand the present position there.
The third point I am going to raise very briefly is this. Recently I was in the west for a few days, and was very surprised at the salaries being paid by the department in post offices in a middle size town of the west. I found that a married man, for example, occupying a fairly responsible position handling mail was being paid $128 a month, while others with some years of service were receiving $150 and $160 a month. It seemed to me those salaries were far below reasonable levels at this time in places where the cost of living is comparatively high, as it always has been in the prairie provinces. Those are the three points on which I am seeking information before this item is passed.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: On the first question, up to June 15 airmail service into Goldfields was performed by Saskatchewan government airways through Prince Albert and Lac La Ronge. This route was not completely satisfactory, and in actual practice a considerable volume of mail was conveyed by McMurray air services from Edmonton, operating on a more or less casual basis, acting as agents of 80709-314
Supply-Post Office
the different companies to carry their mail without cost to the post office department. _
The residents at Goldfields have been constantly pressing for a mail connection through the Edmonton gateway, since most of their mail comes via that channel. As a result, efforts were made to conclude satisfactory arrangements with McMurray air services, but subsequent negotiations led to a more favourable rate with Canadian Pacific Air Lines. An agreement has now been reached with C.P.A. on the basis of 20 cents per pound without any guaranteed minimum for a service between Chipewyan and Goldfields, with a minimum frequency of one trip per week. Canadian Pacific Air Lines already have been operating mail services from Edmonton to McMurray and Chipewyan. No additional cost will be involved in conveying mail to and from Edmonton or McMurray. There is no doubt that the connection with McMurray and Edmonton will result in a very much improved postal service to Goldfields. The first trip was performed by Canadian Pacific Air Lines on June 22. This arrangement is temporary in character pending completion of an airstrip at Goldfields and the establishment of a regular scheduled service with Douglas DC-3 equipment. When this is done the whole situation will be reviewed again.
I might add that the figure of 20 cents per pound I just mentioned compares with a quoted price of 31 cents by Saskatchewan government airways, so 11 cents per pound is gained by this arrangement. Under the old arrangement mail was carried from Edmonton to Saskatoon, and then to Prince Albert by rail. From Prince Albert to Lac La Ronge it went by bus, and from Lac La Ronge to Fond du Lac by air by Saskatchewan airways, then from Fond du Lac to Goldfields by truck or again by air. The new arrangement is direct from Edmonton to Chipewyan and from there to Goldfields, and the mileage is about one-fifth what it used to be.
As to the second question asked by the hon. member the information is as follows. Mr. Alexander Ahenakew was appointed postmaster at this office on August 5, 1948. However, information was received in the district office on November 23, 1949, that the postmaster had disappeared the day previous. An inspection of the office was carried out on November 24, 1949, and it was disclosed that there was a shortage of some $2,000 in the official funds. Apparently the postmaster was in partnership with Mr. Marion in so far as the store in which the post office was

Supply-Post Office
located was concerned, but as postmaster Mr. Ahenakew was solely responsible for the operation of the office.
Owing to the disappearance of the postmaster the office was not in operation from November 22 to November 24 inclusive. As it was not considered advisable to leave the office under the charge of Mr. Ahenakew it was reopened on November 25 in the same premises under the temporary charge of Mrs. C. G. Marion. When the postmaster was found on November 25, 1949, by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police his resignation was obtained, and it was considered advisable to accept it. Instructions were issued on March 30, 1951, for the appointment as postmaster of Mr. R. R. Smith, fur trade controller of the Hudson's Bay Company, but the date of the transfer of the office to his charge has not yet been reported.
On the third question, the salaries of postmasters in these small offices are based upon the revenues. It is not considered that such small offices should occupy the whole time of the postmaster; therefore the salaries they are paid are not considered sufficient to represent living wages.


Major James William Coldwell: I am not talking about postmasters. I am talking about post office employees in the middle size towns.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: What would you consider a middle size town?


Major James William Coldwell: Well, take Rosetown.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That is a matter that would have to be taken up with the civil service commission. It is a question of general government policy.


Major James William Coldwell: Surely it is not general government policy to pay wages so low that it is difficult for men to obtain decent living quarters. I believe all these men have to do other work in order to make ends meet.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I am not sure of the group within which Rosetown falls, but in group 31 the salaries would range from $900 to $1,060. In group 32 the range would be from $1,080 to $1,500; in group 33 from $1,200 to $1,800 and in group 34 from $1,320 to $2,040. I do not know which group would include Rosetown.


Major James William Coldwell: I should think it would be the last one-group 34.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I should like to ask the Postmaster General a question in regard to the post office at Plaster Rock, New Brunswick., From a letter I received on June 19 I understand that post office officials, including one from the Saint John office, went to Plaster

Rock and made arrangements with the postmaster to build an addition to the present post office, which is just a small building. Back in 1939 the Post Office Department decided to build a new post office in the town of Plaster Rock. The Department of Public Works purchased a piece of land in the centre of the town and let a contract to build the post office. They let the contract, but the war came on in 1939 and the work was stopped. But the people of that town were promised that as soon as the war was over the post office would be completed. I understand, however, that last week an official from here made arrangements with the postmaster at Plaster Rock to build an addition to the present little post office he has there-which is only about ten by twelve-and promised him rental for a number of years. If that takes place the town of Plaster Rock will never have a new post office built on the piece of land that the department now owns. That is a progressive town and it should have a new post office. I am going to ask the minister if that is correct.
I have another question. On the second day of May, 1949, the recommendation was made by the Post Office Department to the Department of Public Works to build a new post office in the town of Woodstock. An estimate of $100,000 was put in last year's estimates for the purpose of commencing that building. I see that it has been omitted from this year's estimates. That post office at Woodstock was built soon after confederation. It has outlived its usefulness; it is an obsolete building. There is hardly room enough to turn around in that post office. I would ask the Postmaster General about those two post offices.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: As to Plaster Rock, the hon. member drew my attention to that question last year. If I remember correctly, he then sent me some pictures of the building. Throughout the year we have been endeavouring to make arrangements for somebody to take up the matter of building a post office of their own. This question and the question of the post office at Woodstock are matters which should be taken up with the Department of Public Works.


Heber Harold Hatfield: To follow that matter up, I would ask the Postmaster General if a man from his department went to Plaster Rock and made any arrangements with the present postmaster at that place to build an addition to the present building.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I am sorry but I cannot give any answer to that question. I do not know.


Major James William Coldwell: 1 did not intend to take up any time on this matter, but the minister said that a partnership existed between Mr. Marion and Mr. Ahenakew.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: As far as the store was concerned, but not as far as the post office was concerned.


Major James William Coldwell: I did not understand that; my information was that Ahenakew was Marion's employee. I was also surprised about the disappearance, because, as a matter of fact, this man wrote to me previously, said he was in difficulties and that he expected to be railroaded, as he put it. I imagine he became frightened and ran away, although I do not know that; but he was found a day or two later. Mention of post offices being made by my hon. friend reminds me that there is a town in my constituency, Biggar, Saskatchewan, in which a site was bought in 1938, and where an appropriation was made last year and dropped this year. But I understand that post office, like those mentioned by my hon. friend, is probably one of the large number that were dropped on account of shortages, costs and so on. I hope it will be possible to restore all of them at the next session.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I will say that the Minister of Public Works is listening.


Major James William Coldwell: I was looking at the Minister of Public Works.


George Clyde Nowlan: I should like to revert to the matter which was mentioned a few moments igo by the hon. member for York West and the answer given by the minister. As I understood him, the term "royal mail" was discontinued by the Hon. Charles Murphy, the then postmaster general, some twenty-five or thirty years ago. It seems to me that I have read somewhere statements made by the minister that there never was the term "royal mail", that the statute had never created that term. Apparently we are now told it was in existence and that it was abolished. I should like to know how it was abolished, whether it was done by statute, by order in council, by ministerial action or fiat, when and under what circumstances, and who was told about it. Certainly the departmental officials did not know about it because they have still been making mail boxes with the words "royal mail" on them and until recently the coat of arms was inscribed thereon. I do not think there were twenty-five people in Canada who knew anything about this term being abolished because it has been the term that has been used all the time. The Canadian National has it on the cars. The trucks in Halifax have it on. The T.C.A. planes have emblazoned on them 80709-314J
Supply-Post Office
"royal mail" and the coat of arms. I should just like to know more about the background of the matter.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The postal act does not mention at all the words "royal mail".


George Clyde Nowlan: How was it abolished?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: As I said, it was discontinued twenty-five years ago. It never had any real existence because it is not mentioned in the postal act and there was not any good reason for its being there. The disappearance of it, if you want to put it that way, was inaugurated or started by the Hon. Charles Murphy twenty-five or thirty years ago.


George Clyde Nowlan: What did he do to have it disappear?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I am sorry, but I have not the files before me; it was through administrative powers, I understand.


Solon Earl Low: First of all, I should like to thank the Postmaster General and the Minister of Public Works for having included in the supplementary items the amount of $100,000 to get the public building started at Grande Prairie. This building is badly needed in that town. While the old post office building was not built just after confederation, it looks as though it had been. We certainly appreciate the inclusion in the estimates this year of the appropriation for getting that building started.
The second thing I should like to do is to ask the Postmaster General if the Canadian National Railways have a contract to carry mail out of Edmonton to the Pacific coast; that is, to Vancouver.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The Canadian National Railways carry some of the mail and some of the mail is also carried by the Canadian Pacific Railway. It depends on the route that each, line follows.


Solon Earl Low: The reason I asked that question is this. I have had a great many complaints from residents of the Peace river country who say that mail sent from Grande Prairie, Peace River, High Prairie or any of those points in the Peace river district goes back into Edmonton by way of the Northern Alberta Railways and then, instead of being sent direct to the Pacific coast via the Canadian National Railways, is transferred to the Canadian Pacific, sent to Calgary and then out to the coast, making an extra day in transit. Where people are isolated as they are in the Peace river country, and where there is the necessity for a long back haul, you can understand that they would complain of a day or two of delay in transit of their mail to the Pacific coast when it could easily go straight through from Edmonton.

Supply-Post Office


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Our instructions to all our staff -and we have a special staff for that purpose-are to route it by the quickest way possible. If that is not done in the case of Peace river, I will certainly look into the matter and see that it is done.


Solon Earl Low: I appreciate what the minister has said.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I also want to go back to the subject discussed by the hon. member for York West and I want to revert to the minister's answer. I find the minister's answer perplexing, because I think the minister will agree that whatever was done by Mr. Murphy twenty-five years ago remained unknown to, I suppose, 99-99 per cent of the Canadian people. I think the minister will agree with that and I imagine the minister will also agree that the words "Royal Mail", in the province of Quebec "Poste Royale", have been used commonly up till the present time. There is a fear which I have heard expressed in several quarters quite recently, backed up by certain evidence, that it is now being done away with. When I say "done away with" I mean that the change is beginning to be made.
Before I take my seat, and before the minister answers me, I want to make one or two comments on that. To me, and I imagine to hundreds of thousands of other people in this country, it would be a sort of uprooting, of doing away with something in our past that we value. I am not foolish enough to think that we must not make changes. We have made changes. The word "empire" has largely disappeared, and has been replaced by "commonwealth". I could have gone along myself with the word "empire", but I was very glad to accept the word "commonwealth" because I knew there were many Canadians who disliked the word "empire". But I had believed, until the last few days, that there was one thing perhaps above all others in this country on which we had a common view, and that was with regard to the crown. I have heard that said again and again, and I have never heard it denied. I thought that was one thing where, in spite of all our differences, we could- and when I say "we" I mean largely the people of the two original races in this country-meet	and where differences
disappear. I think that was true of Laurier and it was true of Borden. It was true of Mr. King.
Also I think we have got to the stage when any questions of colonial status are a thing of the past. Sir Robert Borden and Mr. King surely settled once and for all that we are now a self-governing country; so that

these things which might have bothered us in the past are gone. And as I implied a moment ago, to me-and I lived for some years in the province of Quebec-when I saw the words "Poste Royale" on the mail vans and letter-boxes-it was frequently to be seen-it was one of the signs that, well, here is something that does not divide us, where we can unite.
Let me say again that the word "dominion" has begun to disappear. I regretted that. I regretted it very much. But it did not seem too important to me that it was being done, and incidentally I do not know how it was done. I want to come back to that in a moment. It seemed to me it was being done by a rather-what shall I say-narrow view but I said to myself again: I am not going to complain about that because it is pretty hard to make an argument. I have feelings about it, but I am not going to say anything about it and I never did. But now we come to this which, as I say, has seemed to me to be the one, perhaps the greatest thing, which we had in common, and we need things in common. Now is this going to disappear too?
The minister gave an answer tonight. I do not think it was a substantial answer to say that Mr. Murphy did away with this 25 years ago presumably by an administrative act. There is no point in asking now whether he had any right to do it, but the point to me is that whatever he did I do not think affected the situation, because 1 do not believe that a hundred people in Canada knew about it. Now this is being brought up in parliament. Everyone in Canada who takes an interest in what goes on in this chamber will know about it. I put forward what I have said with the greatest earnestness and I hope that it may still be possible to avoid tearing up another of our roots.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I quite realize that the opposition is trying to boost something up where there is absolutely nothing.


Some hon. Members:: Nonsense.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I quite realize that the opposition wants to make a case because I happen to be a French-speaking Canadian.


George Clyde Nowlan: You are not a Canadian
when you say that.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: This matter is another balloon that is being thrown into the air. Under my administration, and under Mr. Bertrand's administration prior to mine, there has not been one single item or decision or instruction given to the officials of the department, and what is taking place today is only a continuation of what was started by Mr. Murphy

away back 25 years ago. There are no new instructions that have been given about it, and this is only a balloon that is being launched.
Everybody in this committee knows that the first speech I made was on Canadianism, and I am still as much a Canadian as anybody in this committee today, and I will do anything to promote the unity of this country; but when things like this are happening, when there are no instructions given by me in that connection, and when it goes back 25 years ago, and it was done by an Englishspeaking Canadian, I do not know why something-it might be a continuing of this practice of what we are not able to call smearing.


Mr. Tustin:: You should be ashamed of
yourself.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I shall not
detain the committee more than a minute. If the hon. member thinks that of me then there is no use in my giving myself a certificate of character. There is never any good in doing that. I thought that what I said would have made it clear that I was furthest away from intending anything of that kind. I hope there are friends of mine in this committee among the members from the province of Quebec who will not think that of me.
The only other thing I want to say is-


An hon. Member:: Ask him to withdraw.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not
going to ask him to withdraw anything. I would point out to the minister that if he had said at the outset what he has just said it would have relieved my mind a good deal. What the minister has said to the effect that nothing has been done by him to change the situation relieves my mind a good deal. The minister should recall that I began by asking whether any change had been made recently. I said there were feelings expressed by various people in the committee to that effect. There is no point in my taking up any more time. If the minister or other people in the committee think that I had raised this with any other idea than hoping that we might avoid anything of a divisive nature, well then, all I can say is that I am very sorry.


Mr. Wright:: I want first to thank the
minister and say to the Minister of Public Works that we appreciate his putting in the revote for the Melfort public building. This building is badly needed for the post office business there, and I am sure the people will appreciate it.
Supply-Post Office
There is one other matter I want to bring up. I asked for a return with regard to the number of rural routes in the various areas in the provinces. I have that return, and it gives the rural mail routes that were in operation in 1946 for each postal district, and the numbers that were in operation in 1951. It is a short table and I would ask the permission of the committee to place it on Hansard. I want to comment on it.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Does the committee agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Percy Ellis Wright: The	table	follows:	Number	of Rural Number	ofRoutes	Boxes	(a)	(b)	(a)	(b)Postal District	1046	1951	1946	1951Vancouver ...	112	140	21,095	33,440Edmonton ....	165	169	9,369	10,059Calgary 	82	78	4,240	4,409Saskatoon 	119	115	4,731	4,563Moose Jaw ...	55	49	1,920	1,828Winnipeg ....	149	154	8,719	9,933London 	815	821	65,705	73,393Toronto 	573	580	43,863	53,892North Bay ...	99	118	4,904	7,053Ottawa 	689	700	42,695	44,020Montreal 	718	751	42,598	52,113Quebec 	503	674	27,370	42,927Saint John ...	349	359	14,265	19,325Halifax 	245	284	11,543	17,707Charlottetown	177	178	9,232	10,244
Rural mail delivery statistics are kept by postal districts instead of provinces.
This table shows that during the five-year period there was an increase in the number of boxes of rural routes in Canada of 73,057. In the province of British Columbia there was an increase of 11,655. In the province of Alberta an increase of 859; in the province of Saskatchewan a decrease of 168; in the province of Manitoba an increase of 1,214; in the province of Ontario an increase of 23,091; in the province of Quebec an increase of 25,072; in the province of New Brunswick an increase of 5,070; in the province of Nova Scotia an increase of 6,164; and in the province of Prince Edward Island art increase of 1,012. There has been an increase in rural mail service in every province in the dominion except the province of Saskatchewan. That is not the whole picture, because 90 per cent of the rural routes in western Canada have two services a week. In most of the rest of the dominion, outside western Canada, there is the usual daily service. It seems to me there should be some equalization in the increase of these services to western Canada. It does not seem reasonable that Saskatchewan should be the only

Supply-Post Office
province in Canada in the last five years in which these routes have been discontinued, and less service given.
One of the reasons has been that where routes have been opened for rebidding there has not been anyone who has been prepared to service the route at the price the Post Office Department has been prepared to pay. In most of the rural routes in Saskatchewan the Post Office Department will not pay more than $700 or $750 for a twice-a-week service. No one can keep the necessary equipment to service a rural route for $750. Most of those routes were started in the horse-and-buggy days, when the routes were twenty-eight and thirty miles in length. Now practically all of them could be enlarged because they have to be serviced by motorcar or, in the wintertime, by snowmobile.
If the Post Office Department made an effort to have two routes out of each post office, so that someone could bid on a route and keep the necessary equipment to make delivery on two routes instead of one, I am sure that this service could be enlarged in western Canada, and serve more people. It would cost a little more but, after all, service to the people through the Post Office Department does not always pay. Many of the small post offices do not make a profit. Nevertheless this is a service we are entitled to have.
I would ask the minister to comment on the fact that Saskatchewan is the only province which has had a decrease in the last five years in the service given on rural mail routes.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The reason, as I indicated, is on account of the routes not being open during the winter. If the hon. member has any particular one in mind I could give him the information with regard to it. Certainly I shall look into the suggestion he has made, and if any improvement can be brought about it will be done.


Percy Ellis Wright: I would appreciate it if that were done; because it would seem to me that there is an increase in Manitoba and Alberta, where the same conditions prevail in winter as are found in Saskatchewan.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I will look into it.


Mrs. Fairclough:: It is quite some time since t'' 2 new system of mail delivery was inaugurated, and since we were assured in the house that matters were running smoothly. Despite this I hold in my hand a letter from a commercial firm in Hamilton enclosing a tender to the Canadian Commercial Corporation. This tender was mailed in Hamilton on June 15, a Friday, and was postmarked as having been received in Ottawa on June 18, which
IMr. Wright.]
was Monday. Three days elapsed. It was received by the Department of Defence Production on June 19, and returned to the tenderer with the notation that it had been received one day too late to be included in the tenders considered. Naturally these people are annoyed.
Four days is a considerable length of time for a letter to come from Hamilton to Ottawa. I would point out that it took only two days to return it to Hamilton again. The notation from the Department of Defence Production is dated June 20 and their letter to me is dated June 21. So that it could not have taken more than two days to come back. Therefore this letter must have been held up in the Hamilton post office.
I have here another letter from another company located on Main street east in Hamilton, who wrote to a client also located on Main street east. Delivery of that letter took two days-and that was within the city of Hamilton itself. In the same mail this company received a letter from England, which had taken only three days to come; and yet it took two days to receive a letter written at one part of Main street in Hamilton and delivered on the same street.
These matters are causing a great deal of comment and considerable discontent, to say nothing of the disruption of ordinary business practices within the city. When I referred to this matter of delayed delivery the other day I was referring to businesses situated on Main street which were classified as being on residential walks.
The Post Office Department, in respect of the letter the delivery of which took two days from one point on Main street to another, says that that is the reason.
The postmaster wrote to the firm in these words:
No doubt part of this delay is caused due to the fact that your firm is located on what is known by the Post Office Department as a residential walk, which received only one delivery.
In the first part of the same letter they explain that they wish to advise that-
-the records of the Hamilton office reveal that on the morning of June 6 there was a carry-over of first class mail i.e. all first class mail was not sorted that night. This was due to the fact that the night staff was not at full strength, owing to illness and further that the amount of mail to be handled on that particular night was above the average.
Both of these instances occurred in the current month, after we were assured that mail delivery was back to normal, and the post office had cleared all excess mail, and that everything was operating satisfactorily.
I also asked with reference to overtime which was to be paid to letter carriers during

the transition period while these new walks were being placed in working order, and I was assured that the walks would be checked, and that these men would be paid according to the amount of overtime that was indicated during the checking period.
Well, they started in to check that. Saturday morning, June 16, was the end of the first week in which the check was being carried out. I have here an affirmation from three of the officers of the letter carriers association in Hamilton in which they say that on Saturday morning June 16, the final day of the first week in which the letter carriers in the Hamilton post office were checked for their hours of detail, it was found that thirty-nine bags of mail had not been opened, that twelve bins of mail had not been sorted, that the wall of the room for a length of fourteen feet was lined with magazines and papers to a height of three feet.
That is the basis upon which the check is being carried out, the result of which will determine whether or not these men are going to be paid the overtime which is coming to them.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: If the hon. member will send me the two letters she mentioned I shall gladly look into them.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, there is a matter I have brought to the minister's attention by mail, and concerning which I have spoken to him on several occasions, but which has not yet been straightened out. I refer to the matter of mail delivery service in the Renfrew subdivision of Calgary- This is a subdivision which was built as a government housing scheme two or three years ago, and practically all of which is now occupied by veterans and their families.
At the time the housing project was carried out the Post Office Department refused to institute mail delivery service because they said there were no roads or sidewalks. Of course, as it was a government building project, there was considerable delay before roads and sidewalks were put in. Eventually however they were put in.
Then the Post Office Department refused to give delivery service because they said there were not sufficient houses that had sidewalks from the street to the front doors. That went on for some time. The department finally reached the point where there was a large enough proportion of people who had built sidewalks from their front steps to the street, with the result that once again they applied for mail delivery service. They still have not a mail delivery service and the story now is that the Post Office Department must wait for the treasury board to authorize
Supply-Post Office
it. This thing has been going on for two or three years. There was an editorial in the Calgary Albertan entitled "The old runaround". There is no doubt that these people got a runaround. I am not going to read all the editorial, but it reads in part:
As a prime example of the bankruptcy of service in the Canadian post office, we give you the case of the Renfrew subdivision in north east Calgary.
After all the delay in giving these people a postal delivery service and in view,of the cutting down of deliveries to one a day in Calgary, I think the department is long overdue in providing this service. What is the holdup and why is it these people have not this service?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I think the conditions for the establishment of a letter-carrier service are well known by now. There have to be at least 2,500 points of call; the revenue of the post office must be at least $50,000 per year; the average distance between points of call must not exceed 40 yards; the streets must be opened up and labelled at intersections; houses must be systematically numbered; walking conditions must be satisfactory throughout the year; there must be proper pathways from the street line to each house; letter boxes or slots in doors must be provided for the receipt of mail and there must be no duplication of street names. If the locality referred to by the hon. member has met all these conditions there is no reason why a service should not be provided. If there are any of these conditions that have not been met, there is no possibility of our giving it to them.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I understand that all these conditions have been met and yet two or three years have passed and there is no service. There is no use the minister reading that long list of conditions because he stated them in his various letters to me and also to these people. As far as I know these conditions have been met and I want to know why these people are not getting a mail delivery service.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: What is the name of the locality?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Renfrew subdivision in
northeast Calgary.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I will check it.


Mr. Noseworthy:: Can the minister give me the information I asked for on June 11 as to how many of the 46,000 employees of his department were appointed by the civil service, and of those who were appointed by the civil service, how many are permanent and how many are temporary?

Supply-Post Office


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I am sorry I cannot give the exact figures, but of the 46,000 there are some 13,440 who are contractors and therefore would not be appointed by the civil service commission. Of the 12,038 revenue postmasters 89-9 per cent are appointed by the Postmaster General and the remainder by the commission. Perhaps I could also answer a question asked by the hon. member for Lake Centre when we were discussing the act. The hon. member wanted a breakdown of departmental appointments for the period April 1, 1949, to March 31, 1951, giving the number of war veterans appointed. The total number of appointments in the two years was 2,031. In 1,555 cases there were no returned soldier applicants, which left a balance of 476. In 407 cases where returned soldiers applied they were appointed, and in 69 cases civilians were appointed, the returned soldiers being put aside for various reasons. These reasons included nonresidence, unsuitable sites, unsuitable as to character or financial responsibility or intemperate habits.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: While the minister is in the mood to answer questions perhaps he will answer the question I asked when the bill was before us but which he refused to answer at that time. I want to know the cost under the new regulations under Bill No.- 322 to a newspaper with a circulation of 8,000 going through the post office. I was most anxious to have an answer to that question at that time and surely the minister and his officials have been able to bring the matter to a head.
I am glad to see the minister back at work because a week ago I was informed that he was ill when he was away on a political trip. It was a case of regurgitation, but he must have recovered after he left Charlottetown. The minister then went to Toronto but he did not have as good a reception. I should like to refresh the memory of the minister by referring to an article in the Charlottetown press which reads in part:
In one of the most fiery hard-hitting political speeches heard here for some time the Postmaster General attacked the lack of Progressive Conservative policy in Ottawa and took particular exception to recent news dispatches crediting Mr. W. Chester McLure, P.C., M.P., for Queens, with obtaining or helping to obtain various improvements.
I suppose that refers to getting the act through. The minister is reported as saying:
Mr. McLure had nothing to do with it.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Is the hon. member speaking on a question of privilege?


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: You can call it whatever
you like.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: If so, he may continue
because he is in order.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The minister went on to
state, and this is the question of privilege, that there had been a meeting and all the Liberal members came to see him about the matter. I was not invited to go to see the minister, I suppose because I am not a Liberal. I told the minister at the time what we wanted in reference to this bill. On a question of privilege I say that the statement made by the Postmaster General is absolutely untrue. When that bill was up I did more for the newspaper that was interested than anyone else, and I was the first one to bring to his attention that the bill was rotten from start to finish. Now we are on his estimates. First of all the estimates should have been brought in before the bill. I do not know what the idea was of putting the cart before the horse instead of doing it the other way. I merely want to make that statement in defence of myself, contradict him and say that the statement he made in Charlottetown against me was absolutely untrue.
There are other things, without raising a question of privilege. I always had the idea that up to a few years ago the Post Office Department was a big revenue producer. In 1947, 1948, and I believe in 1949, they had surpluses running around $11 million, $12 million, or $13 million. Nevertheless we were told the other day that there was a deficit of $12 million, and that in less than five years. That makes a difference of almost $22 million-


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Oh no.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: -according to the Postmaster General, in a few years. That is a strange thing. I should like him to explain it when he replies, or was there no deficit at all this year? He made the statement, however, that this loss had occurred and that we no longer have any surplus. There is another matter I want to mention, and the minister should be able to answer it under this item. So far as postal matters are concerned, is the province of Prince Edward Island going to be treated as a province or as a subsidiary of some other province? Today Prince Edward Island does not have the rights extended to other provinces. For instance, we are attached to the province of New Brunswick. I cannot understand why, because members of the cabinet should know the terms of confederation. If the minister will look up those terms he will find that Prince Edward Island is to be treated the same so far as the Post Office Department and its officials are concerned as any other

province in Canada, and it is not. That is another matter on which I want him to reply.
Then there is another point I have brought up time and again in the last three or four years with reference to the sale of postage stamps. I refer to the case of a man who has been fifty-one years in the service, and if you count the number of hours he has worked each day he has given the postal department seventy-six years of actual service on the basis of an eight-hour day, but they ask him to work twelve hours every day, continuously from eight to eight. 1 think they give him half an hour once a day and that is all. Now they are breaking their contract with this man. He has a contract filed with the department fifty-one years ago. They want to get rid of him and give employment to someone else. They cannot find any fault with him. He is a perfect official. They will not call him an employee. I do not know why, although he has been with them a long time. They say that it is against the law to increase his commission. He only received 2 per cent. Now they have put in meter machines. They are breaking the law and they will not pay him a nickel on the stamps sold through those machines. Last year I wanted him to sue the department but I did not know enough about the law to go into the details of it. In any event this fellow was a good citizen and he said that they would probably soften their hearts some day and give him a small pension. I hope the Postmaster General will not brush that matter aside, as he did last year.
I also want to refer to the letter carriers in the city of Charlottetown who are faced with a serious situation. They have longer walks. They have to put in longer hours with much heavier loads to carry. They do it all without very much complaint but they are looking for payment on the basis of time and a half, or whatever the regulation is. This was refused them, unless it has been granted within the last few days. Some of these men have been twenty-five and thirty years in the service. I am sure they should have some rights and privileges, and some concessions should be granted them. I could ask other questions but I do not want to ask too many in case the minister should forget to answer them all. When the Postmaster General comes back to Charlottetown again I hope he will tell the people what I did and not skate all around it and try to take the glory for himself. I might say it was a very good thing he came at that time because I think the influence of his presence-


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order.
Supply-Post Office


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: -was such that we elected our man quite easily.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I am very sorry that while I was in Charlottetown I did not have enough time to go and salute my friend, the hon. member for Queens. Otherwise I certainly would have done so. The matter of the financial position of the department has been raised. It is true that in 1946 there was a surplus of some $11 million. The deficit this year is $1,338,250.49. Therefore there is a difference of some $12,500,000. The amount of $8 million is accounted for by the increase in salaries of postal employees. The amount of $1,500,000 has reference to increases in salaries of revenue postmasters, and the balance is taken up by increases in payments to transportation companies. I have just said that the deficit for this year is $1,338,250.49. One of the factors contributing to that deficit is that we have to pay the sum of $3 million from current revenue to the railways for last year and the year prior. Therefore if we did not have to take from our current revenue this amount of $3 million the operations of the post office this year would have shown a surplus of $1,700,000.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Has the department given consideration yet, or does it intend to give consideration, to: first, the granting of collective bargaining rights to its employees; second, the payment of overtime at overtime rates; third, revision of the salary scale for postal employees?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I thought I made it clear when my hon. friend was sitting in the first row in Toronto that these were matters of government policy which would have to be taken up by the government before any announcement could be made.


Joseph William Noseworthy: The Postmaster General has assured us from time to time that every effort is being made to accommodate businesses located on streets that are termed residential. I have called to the attention of the minister one instance in which two business firms are located on a street which gets its mail between five and six o'clock in the afternoon. Right across the road from these firms another mail carrier begins his delivery at nine o'clock in the morning. An inspector was sent there to look into the matter, but for some reason it was found impossible for the man who begins his delivery at that point at nine o'clock to deliver letters to the two firms directly across the street. Instances of this kind cause a great deal of dissatisfaction with the service, and I would appreciate having the minister check into that matter. It seems to me it would be simple to have an adjustment made to accommodate business
4960

Supply-Post Office
firms so that instead of getting their mail late in the afternoon they would get it in the morning.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I have already assured the hon. member that a special check was being made in Toronto in order to rearrange the routes. To do what he asked in his letter of June 28 I assure him would be quite difficult as far as sorting is concerned. Probably more difficulties would be encountered if these things were done as he wishes. It is a question of sorting.


Gordon Francis Higgins: There is an old Irish expression that you should speak of the devil as you find him. The minister has been quite courteous and very helpful as far as my personal applications have been concerned. Having made these kind remarks I would ask him to bear in mind the few words I had to say about the St. John's East branch post office and the reference I made to the veterans housing settlement at Tunis Court, as well as the post office at Bacon Cove, Conception bay. Other than that I have no worries about the postmaster. He has been more than generous to me, and if he would say a word on these matters it might be helpful.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The only thing I can say is that I will look into these various matters that have been mentioned.


Gordon Francis Higgins: But you will do so generously?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: As usual.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I want to repeat a question I asked the Postmaster General two months ago, which was not answered. I do not want to have a washing of all the linen in connection with the appointment of the postmaster at Bobcaygeon, but at that time I asked the postmaster why section 24 (c) of the Civil Service Act, which gives the minister the right to override a decision of the civil service commission for cause, was resorted to. I also asked what the cause was, and I am still awaiting an answer. Another thing I should like to know is what revenue a post office must have or what salary a postmaster must receive before he is eligible for superannuation benefits.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: As to the second question, the revenue of the office must be at least $3,000. As to Bobcaygeon, I thought I had already gone into that file quite extensively. A contest was held and there were quite a number of applicants. A man by the name of Potts was recommended by the hon. member. He also had the support of Mr. McNiven, the ex-Liberal member, the Canadian Legion branch at Lindsay, and certain others. The
[Mr. Nosewortbv 1
contest was held, and the various recommendations sent to me by the hon. member for Victoria were forwarded by the department to the civil service commission. That commission reported that Mr. Potts had received 75 per cent and Mr. Beatty, the other contestant, had about 74 per cent; I cannot remember the exact figures.
As a result the commission wrote to the department advising that it had issued a certificate in favour of Beatty, who as I said had one point less than Potts. The department immediately asked why, though Potts had more points, the certificate was issued in favour of Beatty. The reply we got-and the hon. member was furnished with a copy of this file-was that the certificate had been issued in favour of Beatty because Potts had failed on his written examination.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Which was not correct.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: We will come to that. That was the answer given by the civil service commission on January 28,	1950. After
having drawn the attention of the commission to this discrepancy we proceeded with the appointment of Beatty. It was not until some months later that we were suddenly advised by the commission that it had changed its mind and wanted to issue another certificate in favour of Potts. Well, after advising Mr. Beatty that he was to become postmaster we told the commission we could not very well go back to him and say that while a certificate had been issued in his favour a later certificate had been issued in favour of someone else. We maintained to the commission, as I think it was our duty to do, that the first certificate should prevail. We informed the commission that we would not accept the second certificate in favour of Potts but would go on the first certificate; and after examining the file again the commission issued a new certificate in favour of Beatty. It has been stated that the Canadian Legion supported the appointment of Mr. Potts. The Legion at Lindsay did support Mr. Potts, but the Legion at Bobcaygeon supported Mr. Beatty. That in a nutshell is the story of this appointment.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: No, not yet. As to that appointment, at the time the competition was on there was no legion formed in Bobcaygeon. The only legion was at Lindsay and Mr. Potts was recommended by that legion. He also had the recommendation of the zone commander and commanding officer overseas, and also of the reeve of the village of Bobcaygeon, and of his minister. The appointment was not made permanent for quite a while after both these directives were

issued to either of these fellows who had been in the competition. I have no fault to find with Mr. Beatty. I think he is a fine young man. I think he would make a good postmaster.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I have no doubt about that.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: But there is no doubt about it there was a mistake made by the department. That mistake was right in the minister's office. It was not the mistake of the civil service commission; because the civil service commission immediately came out and their official decision was that Potts should have the job. That is all there is to it. There is nothing else to it. More than that-


Jean Lesage: That is not the first mistake.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Are you answering the
question?


Jean Lesage: I say it is not the first mistake.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Keep your mouth shut. When you become minister I guess we will all know about it.


Jean Lesage: You will never be one.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Do not worry about that.


Jean Lesage: I did not say I was.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I am not seeking a job from any government.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order. These remarks are not in order.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I do not have to take a job from any government, no matter what party is in power.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Let these fellows keep quiet then.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: I would ask the hon. member to restrict his remarks to the item under consideration, and to revert to that.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I will revert to the item under consideration when you keep order for me, Mr. Chairman. But so long as there is heckling going on from these other people tonight, I think I should have the same privileges in this chamber as anybody else.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: The hon. member has the same privileges. I would ask him to revert to the item under discussion.


James Sinclair: Carried.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: There you are again, Mr. Chairman-the hon. member for Coast-Capilano. If there are any more of the parliamentary assistants who have anything to say, I should like to hear from them. If you 80709-315i
Supply-Post Office
want these estimates held up, I think I can keep on for a little while longer. I do not mind if I stay here over Saturday and Monday. I am getting well paid for what I do down here, and I think the parliamentary assistants are getting well paid too; and I think they should keep their mouths shut and let somebody else speak who is trying to get some information for his constituents. I did not come down here to listen to fellows like that yapping across the House of Commons. We have heard a lot of that this session. It is about time it was stopped, whether the chairman stops it or whether somebody else stops it.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: That will warm them up.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I can tell you right here that no one of them is able to chase me around the house, neither one is able to do it and probably both of them together are not able to do it. While I was raised in the woods, I am not to be scared by an owl.
There is another matter which I should like to take up. It has to do with the postmaster at Atherley. There was a gentleman there 64 or 65 years of age, and somebody came up from the minister's department, I think from the district office in Toronto. This man had a separate building for this post office. The post office had been in that building for quite a number of years. The man from the department said to him: Your post office is not big enough. He said: That is quite all right, if I get a little more rent I will move the wall out behind a bit. That was agreed on. Then within a week another man came up from the Post Office Department, from Toronto, and he said: Well, you are 65 years of age and we are going to retire you. Your son is the assistant postmaster at $50 a month. We are going to retire you, make your son postmaster and make you assistant. The old gentleman said: That is fine; that is o.k. with me. Then after that change was made and the son-who was a veteran with a small pension-became, as he thought, postmaster by temporary appointment, a competition was put on; and in the competition another fellow who had come into the settlement not so long previously, and had a store across the road, won the competition. Then the clerk in the municipality took up a petition, and every person that received mail at that post office signed that petition, except two, that the post office be left in the same building and be left with the same people. But the Post Office Department and the civil service commission ignored that petition; we therefore have not any more a post office department for the people, by the people, because the people are not

Supply-Post Office
listened1 to unless they come down to the minister two or three at a time, and probably officials of the Liberal party at that.


An hon. Member:: You are giving me advice.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: You have a lot to learn. You just waked up. You have been here with your eyes shut for two years. Evidently you have not put in enough time in the house to listen to what is being said. My father always said it is better to be a good listener than to be a good speaker. That certainly applies to the hon. member from Guelph because he certainly has not said much since he came here. I do not think he has done much listening either, judging by the number of times his seat has been empty.
I think we are having a lot of fun. If these people think that, by heckling me, they are going to stop me from talking, may I tell them that I always think I can talk a lot better when somebody is heckling me. It puts a little spark into the thing and makes it a little bit more lively. It makes the House of Commons not so monotonous.
I should like to have from the minister these answers about the post office at Ather-ley. The post office has now been moved out of the building in which it was. It was a fairly good building. Maybe the building was not big enough, but it was a brick building. I think the post office regulations-and I am not so sure about it; the minister can tell me-requires that a post office have a building of its own. Now the post office is moved across the road in the corner of a store about six feet square. You might call it a chicken coop. It looks more like a chicken coop than it does like a post office.


An hon. Member:: That is public works.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I beg your pardon? Were you speaking to me? Do you want to ask a question?


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I can still go on and tell post office stories.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Chairman, may I intervene at this point? I would ask the consent of the committee to have this item stand, and that we take up the Department of Trade and Commerce. That would be a change, Mr. Chairman, if you have no objection. I think we would make more progress in that way.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.
Item stands.

DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE Standards division-
457. Administration, including administration of the Precious Metals Marking Act, $110,923.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, this is the first item under the group headed "standards division". I should like to ask the minister whether attention has been given by his department to the possibility of setting up standards in two particular fields. I refer on the one hand to the sizing of clothing, and of women's and children's clothing in particular; and I refer on the other hand to the fibre content of clothing.
I have in my hand a document that has probably been placed in the hands of other hon. members, namely a bulletin from the Canadian association of consumers, in which this matter is dealt with rather fully. I find that housewives and women across the country in particular remember the experience that they had during world war II when, under the auspices of the wartime prices and trade board, certain standards were established. Women, when they purchased clothes in those days, felt that they had some guarantee as to the value they were getting for the prices that were paid. Well, that all went out the window when the wartime prices and trade board ceased to operate, and there is a very real problem.
I understand from this document and from other sources, that some work on the setting up of standards, as to the sizes of women's and children's clothing, has been done in the United States. I understand that the results of that research are available to this country. But it would seem that what is needed is some direction from the government. The same is true with respect to the quality of fabrics from which clothing is made. We now have so many different kinds of fabric, and although the store clerks try to be helpful in telling the average purchaser what the particular item of clothing is made of so far as its material is concerned, there is no guarantee. There is no label that is proof to the purchaser as to the fibre content of these various fabrics.
I have in mind the Canada standard trademark that we approved by a bill that went through parliament two or three years ago. I have in mind other ways and means by which the Department of Trade and Commerce does set up standards. Has consideration been given, for example, to the representations made by the Canadian association of consumers? Is something being done in these two fields, first in the setting up of standard sizes for clothing and second in establishing standards with respect to the fibre content of various fabrics?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The department is quite familiar with the bulletin put out by the Canadian association of consumers. We realize that that is a very responsible organization. The bulletin was discussed in the department, and some work is being done on setting up standards.
My hon. friend will understand that it takes a good deal of research to establish a common standard for all Canada. During the last war the sizes were established more as an austerity measure to provide utilitarian garments that could be made up at a reasonable cost and would eliminate all the various patterns and styles that were increasing the cost of clothing. Something is being done on the standardization of clothing. I can say that I am not personally familiar with it and unfortunately the head of our standards division is not here this evening. But I hope that when I present estimates again I shall be able to make a report that will indicate that something is being done.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I should like to add a word. With the current trend toward more and more pre-packaging of goods of all kinds, both clothing and foods, the establishment of standards is definitely more desirable than at any other time in the past. I do hope the department is seriously pursuing this matter.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. The legislation under which the division is operating was passed during the session before last. It is fairly new legislation. It has taken some time to organize the staff and get the work of standardization in hand. I think we are at a stage now where more rapid progress can be made.


Agar Rodney Adamson: How do we accept standards? Do we accept the standards of the American society on testing materials and the American standards society? How are the Canadian standards established? In Washington there are definite standards. Practically everything has a standard, sold to or made to the A.S.T.M. standard. I wondered whether we accepted those standards in everything, or what is the procedure?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, Mr. Chairman. The standard is set at conferences with the interested groups, of which the manufacturers are one, the industrial groups, and perhaps the retail group as circumstances dictate. In any event, the division has a practice of calling in certain people who are interested in certain problems and reaching an agreement after having obtained the views of these people whom they believe to be the interested parties.


Agar Rodney Adamson: However, we try-I assume, I do not know this; I only know so far as
Supply-Trade and Commerce engineering materials go-to keep as near as possible to the American standard.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is thinking of the American standards association, which deals with materials, is he not?


Agar Rodney Adamson: Yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: These standards are accepted all over the continent, and pretty much all over the world. We are talking now about standard sizes of dresses, coats, and standard packages. There is quite a difference.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Clothes and shoes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. That is quite a different problem. It is standards for manufactured goods, whereas my hon. friend is speaking of standards for materials.


Agar Rodney Adamson: The American society does not have anything to do with manufactured goods?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dominion bureau of statistics-
461. Administration, $146,755.
Agar Rodney Adamson: If the information is available can the minister say how and in what particular the new method of figuring out the cost of living is being arranged? I understand that at the present time the dominion bureau of statistics have under consideration a new method of figuring out and weighting the different items in the cost of living, which I understand is coming in next year. Can the minister state what it is?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The bureau is now working on a revision of the cost of living index. I hope that within a short time the dominion statistician will be able to make an announcement, giving details. It is planned to consult with various groups and individuals so that the new index will be the best that can be devised.
May I add that the forthcoming revision of the index is nothing unusual. The index has been revised from time to time over the years on the basis of changing consumer habits. The present index is, we believe, a good one, but it needs to be brought up to date, and that is what is proposed to be done.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I do not know whether the minister has seen the form which I hold in my hand. It is headed: "Census of agriculture; dominion bureau of statistics." I understand that it has gone out not to all farmers, but to a great many of them. I wonder whether this is going to be a yearly thing. This is the first one I have seen. It is quite large. A farmer friend of mine

Supply-Trade and Commerce turned it in to me. He started on it, made out one page, used up two nights, and asked me if I would complete it for him. I am sure there would be a great many farmers who would be absolutely stumped by a sheet this size, particularly in the middle of the summer, their busiest season of the year. Surely, if this is to be a regular thing it would be advisable to send it to them in the wintertime, or sometime in the year when they have a little time to work on it, because I can well imagine that there are a great many farmers to whom this would go, who would have to work nights for about three weeks to try to find the information to fill in the form. I do not think it is fair to send it to farmers in the middle of the busiest season.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is my understanding of the situation that the enumerator fills in the form from questions asked of the farmer. I presume it is a form-


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It is a census of agriculture form; it asks about the operation of the farm, the seeding, the farm machinery and equipment, cattle, dairy products and so on.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I now have better information. The chief of the bureau is here. He tells me that it is a form that is sent to all farmers. It is part of the dominion census as my hon. friend knows. It is sent to all farmers in advance so that they can study the questions. Then the enumerator calls for the form, and if it is not completed he helps the farmer fill it in. The enumerator takes the information with him to be amalgamated with the census information.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Do I understand that this Is only going to occur once in ten years?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Once in ten years.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It is to be hoped so; it would take ten years to fill it out.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
463. Census of population and agriculture and the 1951 census of distribution, $7,015,851.
Mr. Cole (Verdun-La Salle):: Mr. Chairman, I am told that on the form to be used by the enumerators optometrists are being classified in the category of retail merchants and others of a similar type. It is easy to understand that optometrists today across Canada are professionally organized under acts of legislatures. I would ask the minister to see whether it would be possible, in the compilation of the data of the census, to make the reclassification accordingly.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, there have been a * number of protests. The optometrists believe they are professional people, rather than storekeepers. Consideration is being

given to this matter, and I am hopeful that it may be possible to make a separate classification for them.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
465. To provide for the Canadian government's annual assessment for membership in the international wheat council, $25,000.
Percy Ellis Wright: Mr. Chairman, I will not open a debate on wheat at this time. However, there are one or two points I should like to mention. The minister has received representations from the various farm unions and also from the wheat pools with regard to the domestic price of wheat. He has also received representations from the farm unions with respect to some revision of the Canada Grain Act.
I would ask him to give consideration to having these matters brought before the committee on agriculture at the fall session of the House of Commons, so that there can be a reasonably full discussion of them, and some agreement reached. Otherwise I think there will be continuous pressure from the west with regard to a revision of the grain act, and certain other matters. I would ask that he consider having the committee on agriculture set up so that the various groups wishing to make representations to the government may appear.
Mr- Howe: I will be very glad to give consideration to that request. I am not sure whether it is the intention at the fall session to set up the usual committees. However, if they are established, and if the committee on agriculture is set up, I shall be glad to have these matters discussed before that committee.


Mr. Quelch:: Would the minister explain the effect of the six-cent increase in carrying charges on wheat he announced some time ago? Will that mean an increase of six cents in the price to the farmer, or will it be absorbed by increased charges?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Six cents per bushel is about the average carrying charge. At the present time it is paid out of the revenue from the wheat sold. In effect the six-cent carrying charge means that the wheat sold next year will be sold for six cents more than the wheat sold this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian government elevators -
468. Operation and maintenance expenses (revote $100,760), $625,467.
Gordon Francis Higgins: Would the right hon. gentleman, who is in such good humour, answer a question for me? I discussed this matter briefly last Saturday with his colleague the Minister of Agriculture, and he practically

referred me to the minister. This matter is the question of the establishment of a grain elevator in the newest province. I am sure the minister is fully aware of the circumstances. The Minister of Agriculture visited Newfoundland recently and in the course of one of the several addresses he made he informed the farmers that he thought a grain elevator would be a fine thing in Newfoundland, and said that he would use his good offices to have it established.
The Minister of Agriculture gave many reasons for an elevator in Newfoundland. He pointed out that in the event of war and difficulty of transport it would be a good thing to have an elevator at St. John's which is an ice-free harbour. He thought, generally, that it would be an admirable idea. On Saturday he indicated that he would use his good offices with the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Would the minister care to say anything in the matter?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have spent the greater part of my life in building grain elevators and planning their locations and one thing and another. I would need to have a carefully prepared report to decide whether Newfoundland would be a satisfactory location for an elevator. I would start out with the gravest doubt as to whether that is so.
One obstacle would be that usually a grain elevator requires a flour-milling industry, and the sale of offals to a livestock population which, in Newfoundland, I understand is not very great. There is the additional complication in that the freight on feed for livestock is free from Fort William. On the other hand if the wheat were shipped down to Newfoundland it would have to pay the normal tariff, and the feed would be expensive.
I should think all those conditions would militate against the practicability of a grain elevator at the port of St. John's. However, I never like to make snap decisions, and I shall not in this instance.


Gordon Francis Higgins: The Minister of Agriculture said it was possible that a flour mill would be established there.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If my hon. friend would say whose money would be used for a grain elevator and a flour mill, I might think better of it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
680. Departmental administration and payments to Canadian Commercial Corporation and other corporate agencies for services provided in connection with defence purchasing and production-further amount required, $1,000,000.
Supply*-Defence Production
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have here the annual report to the Minister of Defence Production covering the period November 22, 1950, to March 31, 1951, and it gives an outline of the relationship of the various companies.
As I understand it we begin with the Defence Construction Company, which took over the charter rights of wartime housing. It now discharges the functions formerly discharged in respect of construction by Canadian Commercial Corporation and the Department of National Defence. Then Defence Construction turns around and employs Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
According to the report, for this purpose it entered into a management agreement with Central Mortgage and Housing under which the corporation-that is, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-undertook to supervise the construction of the work on the part of Defence Construction Limited, as well as provide incidental related facilities.
I would ask the minister to make clear to me-and I think, at the outset, that I understand fully what the Department of Defence Production does. I thought I understood what Defence Construction did-that is, until I read this. Now I cannot understand what Defence Construction does, except that it acts as a liaison between Defence Production and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which calls tenders and supervises construction of the work. On the face of it it seems hard to understand what work is left to be done. You have defence production which knows what it wants to get done, and you have Central Mortgage and Housing which calls for tenders and supervises the construction.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The staff of Defence Construction is small, but it is responsible for keeping in touch with the services, working out their requirements and making sure that the money is provided to cover the project. They work with Central Mortgage and Housing in arranging to call for tenders, in examining the tenders, and use the facilities of Central Mortgage to supervise the work in the field. I explained earlier that we had the option of establishing a far-flung staff practically from coast to coast to take care of the construction work, but we felt that when there was an existing staff doing somewhat similar work it would be better to use the services of that staff and possibly expand it rather than to duplicate an organization. The responsibility lies with Defence Construction Limited
4966	HOUSE OF
Supply-Defence Production which simply buys or retains the services, if you like, of the other staff instead of acquiring a staff of its own.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Am I right in thinking that practically all the directors and officers are members of the Department of Trade and Commerce?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is Mr. R. G.
Johnson a member of the staff?


Clarence Decatur Howe: He is a dollar a year man.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is not exactly what I meant. What about the others?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They are permanent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
681. To provide capital assistance for the construction, acquisition, extension or improvement of capital equipment or works by private contractors engaged in defence contracts, or by crown plants operated on a management-fee basis, or by crown companies under direction of the Minister of Defence Production, subject to approval of treasury board-further amount required, $50,000,000.
Douglas Scott Harkness: This item is for $50,000,000 and a similar amount appeared in the main estimates. Can the minister give some indication as to how this additional $50,000,000 is to be used, how much will be a straight grant to private companies for capital expansion, and to what extent he expects it will be recoverable?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The commitments to date for capital assistance amount to approximately $113,000,000. That amount will not be required this year, but it was felt that an additional $50,000,000 should be provided to take care of the commitments during the present fiscal year. I have explained before that where capital assistance is given the facility created remains the property of the crown. It must be built on land owned by the crown and the asset created is the property of the crown. The recovery will depend on the ability of the crown to dispose of the property after the emergency. I think I stated that after the last war the average recovery was something between 60 and 65 per cent.


Percy Ellis Wright: Has the minister any breakdown of the $100,000,000 as between crown corporations and privately owned corporations?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am sorry but I have not a break-down. The larger part would be for the aircraft industry. We are building an engine plant in Toronto that involves an investment of some $40,000,000 for plant and machinery. We have also bought machinery to make gears for naval vessels, and have


created other facilities of that type. I imagine that 75 per cent of the facilities created will be operated by companies other than crown corporations, but the facilities will be owned by the crown.


Percy Ellis Wright: Is there any rental charged the private corporation for equipment provided by Defence Production?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There will be no charge in the case of the engine plant because if a rental was charged it would simply appear as an item of cost because the plant is to produce engines at cost, plus a management fee. If machinery is put into a plant also handling work on a commercial basis a rental is charged.


Major James William Coldwell: Is the management fee based on a percentage? This is really an enormous amount of money to ask the committee to vote at half past ten when we expect to be adjourning within a few hours. There is not time to go into it and we must have a great deal of confidence in the people who are going to spend it if we are to vote for it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend and I were
both in the house between 1940 and 1945 when we discussed large sums under a similar situation. The management fee is usually based on a percentage of the value of output, but not necessarily so. We try to get a realistic basis, one that can be audited. It might be one per cent of the cost, and it might be on some other basis which could be more easily computed. It is all subject to treasury board cost auditing and is also subject to renegotiation after the actual costs are determined.


Percy Ellis Wright: I believe a great deal of this equipment is in Canadair which is producing the F-86. Can the minister give the cost of the F-86 to the Canadian government and the comparable cost of the F-86 to the United States government where it is being manufactured in plants that are not supplied with equipment?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are some tools provided
for the F-86, but the Canadair plant was a going concern before this emergency started. It is too early to see how our costs will compare with those in the United States, but I think I will be able to report, say in another six months, that our costs for the part we manufacture in Canada are lower than similar manufactures in the United States. The difficulty is that we are buying engines at the moment and a good many instruments. We call them government furnished parts. They will cost more than they do in the United States because they are bought there and we must pay added freight and duty. The

finished aeroplane will probably be more expensive in Canada than in the United States, but the airframe and such instruments as we manufacture in Canada will probably be cheaper here than in the United States.


Percy Ellis Wright: Did I understand the minister to say that we pay duty on these engines?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Percy Ellis Wright: Is not that rather foolish? We are simply charging duty to ourselves. Why would the government pay duty on aeroplane engines coming into Canada for which they are paying?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I put up the same argument
to the Department of National Revenue, but the fact is that the government does pay duty the same as anybody else. If Trans-Canada Air Lines wants to buy an aeroplane outside Canada, they must pay duty when it is brought in. If Canadian National Railways want to buy a locomotive outside the country, they must pay duty when it is brought in. It is simply taking money out of one pocket and putting it into another, but it seems to keep things in balance.


Gordon Francis Higgins: On the first $50 million in the original estimates I did not ask the minister any questions at all. My friends from the maritime provinces asked certain questions. We are now on the second $50 million, making $100 million. The only knowledge I have of any allocation to Newfoundland is $10,000 to a company in St. John's for fuel oil. Is there any more than that? If so, will the minister tell me? I am not going to go into it beyond that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am sorry, but my officers are not here, and I cannot keep track in detail of where all this money is located geographically. I have a fair idea of where it goes, but I am sorry to say that I cannot answer the question.


Gordon Francis Higgins: All I want to ask the minister is whether we are going to get our share.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It all depends what defence material my hon- friend's province is able to manufacture. If someone from Newfoundland will come forward with a good proposal for manufacturing any product required for the emergency, we will give it preferred consideration.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We over here are more modest people. We are not so accustomed to dealing with sums of $50 million. I want to ask the minister one or two questions about it. He spoke a little while ago about the government owning the property. I imagine what the minister
Supply-Defence Production meant by that is that anything they put in continues to be their property, machinery or equipment.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. If it is a structure we require the land to be transferred to the crown. If it is simply a machine put in someone else's building the machine is tagged and the number is recorded in our accounts. It is carried as crown property, and it remains crown property no matter what happens to the real estate.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Are there any limitations of any kind? What I mean is, does there have to be a certain percentage of private money in there to qualify to have government money put in? After all, this is being operated by private enterprise and for a profit, although the minister of course has pointed out they are subject to renegotiation, but are there no guides of any kind, no percentages of any kind that are followed? You might get into a situation where the government would perhaps put up 75, 80 or 90 per cent and private ownership would supply only a very small figure, in other words, would take only a very small part of the risk.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, it must be one thing or the other. If it is private enterprise, it is private enterprise. If it is a government assisted project, it must produce something we need very badly and cannot obtain from existing privately-owned facilities. It must be something unusual. Nor can you mix the two very well. We do not go in partnership with anyone. If it is capital assistance for a new project it is all capital assistance. If it is tooling for a special product all the tooling is put in under capital assistance. I do not know whether or not I can give my hon. friend a particular example of what would qualify, but not many projects qualify for capital assistance. Even though the total given is large, as I say some $40 million is going into one project, the Orenda engine plant. Large sums are going into tooling for the aircraft industry in its various components, and large sums are going into the arsenals.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Are these wholly-owned government enterprises?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I take it they do not come under here at all because this refers to capital assistance for works by private contractors engaged in defence contracts.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Or by crown plants.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Oh yes, or by crown plants. As I read the first part of this it would seem that the government was prepared to go in as a partner.

Supply-Defence Production


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh no. For instance, we might call on the Westinghouse company to build guns. The Westinghouse company might have a suitable building, and they might not, but if they had we would use it and we would put in the machinery for boring the guns or such machinery as was specially required for that particular contract. When the contract was finished we would take out the machinery and do what we liked with it, store it for the next war or sell it. Anything we put in we would take out. If a new building was required we would own the building, the land the building was on and contents. It must be something we require which we cannot get through the standard facilities. It must be something that is quite out of the ordinary if we give capital assistance.


Agar Rodney Adamson: With respect to the $40 million for the Orenda engine, I take it that the property and the plant remain the property of the A. V. Roe Company.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, you are quite mistaken. The land the plant is built on, the plant itself and all the equipment in the plant are the property of the crown. Anything we do under capital assistance is the property of the crown and remains the property of the crown. That is what capital assistance means.


Agar Rodney Adamson: But the A. V. Roe Company is a private company.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Agar Rodney Adamson: And the facilities, the
machinery, the buildings, the structures for the building of the Orenda engine are crown property.
Mr- Howe: That is right.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I understand that the
Orenda engine is the standard engine for all jets produced in Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It would be the engine used for the F-86 and the CF-100, the Canuck. It is a suitable engine, and to the extent that production is available it will be used in both, although probably after the Canuck production gets rolling all the engines will go into the Canuck, and we will again buy engines for the F-86. Our engine productive capacity is not in pace with the productive capacity of airframes.


Agar Rodney Adamson: What engine goes into the F-86-the Sabre?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, I believe it is.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
825. To authorize a further amount of $50 million for the purpose of increasing from $100 million to $150 million the amount by which expenditures

charged to the defence production revolving fund may in the current and subsequent fiscal years exceed receipts shown therein, as provided for in section 16 of the Defence Production Act, $50,000,000.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: What is this
item?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is our old friend, the revolving fund, that we discussed previously.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Prime Minister's residence-
324. Maintenance and operation, $25,000.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: There is a matter here which I think should be raised. I raise it with some regret but without any apology, and I am sure the Prime Minister will realize that when I raise it I do so because it affects a public building. It is the public building in which the Prime Minister resides, a matter of which we all approve wholeheartedly. Nevertheless I think we would be remiss in our duty if we did not ask for further particulars about the cost of this building concerning which we have had, so far as I am aware, no information for many months. Let me say again that I am sure the Prime Minister will realize this question is asked without the slightest disrespect to him, but after all this is a public building in which large sums have been invested and on which I think we should be informed. I know of no other place where the information can be obtained.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: This is not the place at all. My hon. friend is referring to a public building which is under the control of the Department of Public Works, and for which there are items in the estimates of that department. There are no items for it in the estimates of the office of the privy council or the Prime Minister's office. There is one item of $25,000 for the running of the household after it has been turned over by the Department of Public Works, but I am not in a position to give any information as to the cost. I took care to exercise no influence whatever on what was being done there, pointing out that it was not for the present Prime Minister but, I hoped, for a long series of prime ministers, and I thought they should do what the experts considered proper. As far as I was concerned I would be satisfied with whatever they did.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am sure that is so, and that was what I meant by saying at the outset I was sure the Prime Minister would know I had no other thought in mind in raising this question. Nevertheless as far as I am aware there has been no other point anywhere in the estimates at which we could ask the question. I realized

that it would not seem to be covered and could not be covered by this item of $25,000, but I raised the question here because I could not see any other place in the estimates where that could be done, and I felt it was a question the Department of Public Works would wish to answer.


Alphonse Fournier: During part of yesterday I was putting through my estimates, and the hon. member knows I am always ready to answer any question put to me coming under my department. At that time I had my books with all the information. I would not dare give figures now from memory, because I know the opposition scrutinize every answer I give in the house concerning the Prime Minister's residence; and the hon gentleman just looking at me has also put questions. It is an open book for anyone to see. We expropriated a property; a judge of the exchequer court said it would cost so much; we gave contracts for the work, and they have amounted to so much. Do not ask me those amounts right now; I might make a mistake as to the cents. Furnishings were purchased for the home, as the hon. gentleman saw when he visited it. What other item would there be?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: And landscaping was done.


Alphonse Fournier: It is all covered under my estimates, and really I was somewhat taken aback yesterday when no hon. member put questions to me. I was just waiting for a chance to give the answer.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I apologize to the minister for not having asked the question yesterday. It may have been just my stupidity in not seeing an item under which it would come. I hope the minister, being so obliging, will be able to give us those figures in the morning, not from memory, along with other information.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: It would have to be done with unanimous consent, because those estimates have been carried.


Alphonse Fournier: I have made some engagements for tomorrow so I hope the hon. gentleman will wait until the fall, when all the information will be available. If he wishes to write to me about these matters I will send him a very nice reply giving all the details.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: The minister knows I have put some questions on the order paper about this matter, and have received some answers.


Alphonse Fournier: Yes, and I wish you would be kind enough to pass on the information to your colleague.
Supply-Privy Council


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: The last question was made an order for return, and it has not been tabled yet.


Alphonse Fournier: I will try to have it tabled tomorrow morning. I will not leave the building until that is done, if I can find my officials.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I reiterate my point; I do not think there was anything in the public works estimates except perhaps an over-all figure which covered this question. I am not going to pursue the question further except to say that I still hope the minister will see fit to let us have these figures tomorrow.


Alphonse Fournier: Just to make the provision clear, the amount spent on the residence was contained in a vote of last year. We did not need any more money this year. The hon. member will find all the expenditures set out in the public accounts, because we give all the information we have in our possession.
I have just been handed the report which was requested by the hon. member for Victoria, and with unanimous consent of the committee I will table it now, so he will have all the information.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: That is fine.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
326. Expenses of the national capital planning committee, $45,000.
Agar Rodney Adamson: What are the grounds the Prime Minister has to keep up under this vote?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The federal district commission, which is under the privy council office, keeps up the grounds of all the properties in the district belonging to the federal government.


Agar Rodney Adamson: So I see by the item, but to me it seems rather extraordinary that the Prime Minister's department and not the Department of Public Works should be expected to keep up the grounds.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: When the federal district commission was reorganized it was placed under the privy council office, and the Prime Minister is the minister through whom the federal district commission reports to parliament. This is the item that has been provided for many years for the work they do in keeping up the driveways, the parks and all the property that has been acquired in the federal district, which form part of their assets. The report for 1950 was tabled on

Supply-Privy Council February 12, 1951, containing a full description of their assets, details of the expenditure they incur, details of capital expenditure and so on. For instance, there is a rather substantial item in connection with something they had to do with the Champlain bridge. Things of that kind are detailed in this report.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
327. To authorize payment of the fourth instalment to a special account in the consolidated revenue fund, known as the national capital fund, established under vote No. 809, Appropriation Act, No. 4, 1947-48, $2,500,000.
Douglas Scott Harkness: What happens to this money that is put into the national capital fund?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I asked them to give me that information, too. In the report that was tabled they accounted for the two instalments they had received, amounting to $5 million, of which about $1,500,000 had been turned over to them and something like $400,000 had been expended. Since this report was tabled on February 12 a further instalment of $2,500,000 was placed to their credit, bringing the total to $7,500,000. The expenditure out of that amount to date is as follows:
Purchase of real property	 $860,284
Mackenzie King bridge to date	 658,462
Railway cutoff line and freight yards ..	111,643
That makes a total of $1,630,389. The rest is a credit in the capital account of the federal district commission.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Do I understand that this
fund is just for the purchase of land, bridges and things of that sort, and that it does not cover buildings?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It is just for the large
capital projects.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It does not cover buildings, though?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No. They do not erect
public buildings. It is for the acquisition of lands and improvements of the nature of the trackage that is being provided to get away from the freight yards here in the heart of the city, or this bridge that is being put over the canal and the railway yards to try to relieve the congestion and, as some say, the confusion that one frequently meets in Confederation square. So far the amounts drawn total $1,630,389.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
168. Office of the secretary to the governor general, including the salary of the secretary to the governor general at $7,600 additional to salary authorized by chap. 182, R.S.C., 1927, $114,597.
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a question with
regard to this item? It relates to this item but it relates also in a general way to other items similar to it. I think this is the first opportunity I have had this session to bring it to the attention of the Prime Minister again. As he knows, the Auditor General has drawn attention to the fact that there are a number of cases through the estimates where a certain amount of salary or other expenditure is paid by statute, and then an additional amount is paid by virtue of an item in the estimates. On several occasions it has been suggested that it would be well to tidy up these matters by amending the appropriate statutes. On previous occasions the Prime Minister has agreed with me and has said that attention was being given to it. Is any progress being made in connection with that sort of tidying up?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Progress is being made,
but we have not yet reached the end we shall have achieved when the progress has been completed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
443. Canada Temperance Act, $1,000.
Gordon Francis Higgins: In the particulars of this
item, it would appear that the amount allocated is for legal fees, and that there has been a decrease of $500 in legal fees for this current year. Will the minister tell us why that is so? Is Canada getting more sober? Are lawyers asking less in the way of fees, or what is the reason?


An hon. Member:: Economy.


Hon. F. G. Bradley (Secretary of State):: I understand that we pay these costs only where the act is in force. The only place it has been in force is in Quebec; and it is not in force there now, I understand. As far as we know, there is no evidence that lawyers' fees have decreased.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Is it for seven cases or what is it?


Agar Rodney Adamson: While the minister is
looking up that information, can he tell us how many counties in Ontario are still under the Canada Temperance Act?


Mr. Abboti:: Personal interest?


Agar Rodney Adamson: I live in one.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I understand that it is now in force only in the county of Peel.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Just for the county of Peel? Is that correct? Only in the county of Peel? The government had to pay $1,000

to enforce the Canada Temperance Act in the county of Peel? I am glad to hear about that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General-*
448. Bibliographic centre (national library), $48,221.
Douglas Scott Harkness: Where is this national
library for which a vote is provided here? I thought we were lacking one.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: This item is for the bibliographic centre. It is being conducted in connection with the national library. I do not know that it has any particular geographic location at the moment. It is an endeavour to index the books of all the libraries within Canada in order that they may be available to students and research workers who wish to look up particular works which will assist them in their studies.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister says that he does not know that it has any particular geographic location. But actually these people must work somewhere.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: They work in public archives.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I was wondering where this national library is, which is put in brackets after the words "bibliographic centre"; because my information was that we did not have one.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: We are endeavouring to create a national library. It is not in existence yet as such.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Where are the people?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: The people are working under the archives department.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Where are the books?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Some of them are in this building.


George Randolph Pearkes: Could we have tabled a catalogue of the books?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: The catalogue in connection with the parliamentary library is not yet ready.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the minister not mean the national library?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: The sum of $41,000 was voted for this bibliographic centre last year. The minister should have more information about it than has been given so far.
Civil service commission-
75. Salaries and contingencies of the commission, including the chairman of the civil service commission and two civil service commissioners at $2,000 each, additional to chapter 53, statutes of 1947 and to provide for continuance in office of C. H. Bland as chairman of the civil service commission
Supply-Secretary of State from September 6, 1951 to March 31, 1953, the date of expiry of the term of ten years for which he was last appointed, $1,664,586.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Under this item with respect to the civil service commission I should like to ask the Secretary of State a question or two. It has been represented to me that in connection with the economy drive on the part of the government, a drive the effects of which are felt most of all by the employees in the civil service, a certain practice is followed. As I understand it, the practice is this: When a vacancy occurs in a certain position, very frequently the civil service provides a replacement at a lower grade, and accordingly at a lower salary. The result is that in some departments of government you will have two people working side by side and doing precisely the same job, but one grade two and the other grade one, or one grade two and the other grade three, and therefore subject to a salary differential of $20 or $25 a month. The representations made to me are to the effect that that is not very good for the morale of civil servants.
If this practice is being carried on, it seems to me to be an unwise one. If the Secretary of State knows anything about it and would comment on it now I would appreciate it. If not, I hope he will take the matter up with the civil service commission and see what can be done about it.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I have no knowledge whatever that any such practice is being undertaken at this time, but I will certainly make inquiries about the matter.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I should like to speak to the Secretary of State about the composition of the commission. I noticed today that the chairman's term expired or would expire normally on September 6, 1951, and has been extended for approximately a year and a half. I believe I am correct in saying that at that time he is due for retirement.
A couple of weeks ago I put a question on the order paper with reference to the number of employees, male and female, who are under the jurisdiction of the civil service commission. An order for return was passed towards the latter part of last week. Unfortunately, I have not received it up to the present time. However, judging by the general complexion of employees as I have observed them I would think it must be nearly fifty-fifty. I would ask the Secretary of State whether in the course of the next year and a half, before the retirement of the chairman, earnest consideration will be given to the appointment of a woman commissioner to this commission when the first vacancy occurs.
4972	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Printing and Stationery


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I will undertake to give some consideration to the request.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
329. Departmental administration, $72,604.
Douglas Scott Harkness: I have a number of questions to ask on this item. I asked quite a lot of questions in connection with this department. As a matter of fact I think I got two sessional papers, 107C and 107D which contained 24 questions altogether. Ten of these were dealt with by the Department of Public Works, and the other fourteen, perhaps I had better say, were deftly evaded by the department of public printing and stationery, and as a result of the fact that the returns were so uncommunicative in their answers I am forced to try to get the information at this time. The first question was:
How many new employees will the new government printing bureau plant have?
The answer to that was:
As the completion of the new departmental building is not expected for a considerable time, it is not possible to foresee what the printing requirements of the government will be two or three years hence, nor the nature of the equipment that may be available. Consequently it is not possible at this time to determine how many new employees will be required.
Well, the department of public printing and stationery of course must have drawn up plans for this building and how they were going to operate things. They must have some general idea of what expansion in their staff is going to be required, and how this enormous new building, which is under construction at the present time, is going to operate. I would like the minister first of all to give me any information they have in regard to what the increase in the staff is going to be from the present number of 1,043, which is given in answer to the second question in this return.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: This building will not be completed for some time, and we do not know what changes will take place in printing practices in the meantime. It is utterly impossible to give any intelligent idea as to just what the staff will be two, three or four years hence. The only thing I can suggest to the hon. member is that as of March 31, 1950, the total number of employees was 991. At this date it is 1,062. What the increase will be in the next three or four years we could not undertake to estimate at the moment.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As I say, Mr. Chairman,
it seems to me that the department of public printing and stationery must have some idea of the expansion of the staff that is going to


take place, and that is the thing that I am complaining about. There was practically the same sort of answer, or an answer along that line, to every question that I asked. They could not answer it. In any event the third question in this return was:
(a)	Where will the bureau secure its new employees?
(b)	Does it propose to train them, or depend upon hiring workers from private plants?
The answer I received was as follows:
(a)	Appointments to clerical and printing trades positions on the staff of the department are made by the civil service commission.
That is a lovely answer as to where they will secure these new employees. Then they go on to say:
(b)	Policy to be determined in the light of circumstances existing when the new building is available.
I think one thing is quite clear. They are going to require more employees to man this terrific institution they have at the present time. Have they any policy or any idea whatever how they are going to get these new employees? Are they going around to private printers and say:	Here, John Jones,
you come and work for us? In other words, are they going to rob the local printers, or are they going to take people and train these people themselves?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: This is a matter, as has
been pointed out in the return, which is under the jurisdiction of the civil service commission. When we need employees in the printing bureau the civil service commission undertakes to get them, and advertises in the newspapers in the usual way, an examination takes place, and in that way a selection is made for every job for which we require a new man. That is all I can say about it. I do not know that there is anything further that it is possible for me to say.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There are quite a number
of people who are interested in this matter. I believe the printing trades union are interested in it, and the printing firms, and all sorts of people [DOT] are interested in it. The minister should be able to say something further in connection with it. The next question was:
How do bureau rates of pay compare with commercial scales elsewhere?
The answer was:
The Public Printing and Stationery Act provides that no increase of wages shall be made so as to raise the rate above that which is, at the time of such increase, paid for similar work in the cities of Montreal and Toronto. Rates paid to prevailing rate employees during the last fiscal year were based on rates prevailing in Ottawa for similar work.

What was the rate paid to these people?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: The rate at that time was


Douglas Scott Harkness: What was the $1.50 for?
Is that for bindery men, printers or what?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: That was for journeyman
printers.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What were the rates for
other trades?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Some of the assistants would get a lower wage, of course. I think the assistants were then getting $1.35, or something like that, but I do not remember exactly. They are really all journeyman printers.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Do I understand that this rate was supposed to be the rate prevalent in union shops in Ottawa-$1.50 an hour for journeyman printers?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Yes.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Was that recently?


Douglas Scott Harkness: April 23.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Up to January 1 of this year.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That is a whale of a lot lower than it is in Toronto and Hamilton.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The next question was:
Is it proposed to have sufficient employees to meet government printing at times of peak requirements?
The answer was:
No change is anticipated in present policy to maintain sufficient staff to take care of work which by its nature or because of circumstances must be produced in the department, and to meet unforeseen requirements.
Once again this was not an answer which meant anything. I would ask the minister what is meant by the expression "Work which by its nature or because of circumstances must be produced in the department". What sort of work does that cover?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: That includes printing for parliament, including Hansard, the statutes and documents that, by their nature, have to be printed in secrecy.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Is the entire printing staff at the present time engaged in work of that nature? If not, what proportion of it is engaged in that kind of work?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: During the session about 40 per cent of the staff goes on the work of the session. What would in the normal course be done by that 40 per cent is given to outside firms.


Douglas Scott Harkness: With the very considerable increase in the size of the printing bureau that is going to take place when they have
Supply-Public Printing and Stationery the new building, is the same policy to be followed of having enough people to carry on the normal government printing requirements, and then when parliament is meeting and the bureau has to turn out Hansard and other publications, the surplus is turned over to private printers?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: It must be borne in mind that at the present time our operations are carried on in some sixteen buildings in various parts of the city. When we have all our operations under one roof we expect to make a considerable saving in that way.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What does the minister mean when he says that they expect to make a considerable saving? Is it a saving in manpower, money or time?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Among other things, the cost of administration. Surely it must be obvious to the hon. member that, when one has an undertaking dispersed in sixteen different places in the city, the overhead expenditures and various other costs must naturally be greater than if it were all under one roof.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That seems to be fairly obvious, that there might be a saving in that way. But I might say that most of the facts about this printing bureau are no more obvious to me than they appear to be to the minister.
After that I asked a question in regard to equipment:
What new equipment will be purchased for the composing room, press room, bindery and other mechanical departments.
I got the same type of answer that I got in connection with the other one, that because the completion of the new building is not expected for some time they could not say anything about it. But surely they have some idea of how much more space they have; surely they have some idea of the amount of new equipment which is going to go in.
I would ask this specific question: Are any new departments more than they have at the present time-that is, by way of colour departments, or anything else-going to be put in? Surely I can get a more definite answer than the one I have been given, namely that because the building is not completed they cannot tell us anything.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: There are no new colour departments, or anything like that, in contemplation at the present time. We propose to move all our machinery to the new building, and all our operations will be carried on there. If and when we require new machinery it will have to be obtained.
After all, this is a growing nation, and the activities of every department of government
4974	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Printing and Stationery must of necessity increase as the nation grows. Our printing bureau must grow accordingly. Furthermore it must be borne in mind that during the war a good deal of our machinery -and we have quite a bit of it-deteriorated. We were not able to replace it. We are gradually replacing it from time to time.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I still have not an answer as to how much new equipment they propose to secure.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: The answer to that is that no man on earth can tell.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I would say the answer to it is that the minister does not know. It is not that no man on earth can tell. Certainly I think any man in the commercial printing business could give a pretty good guess.
Then I asked how printing bureau costs compared with prices charged by competitive private plants. The answer was that it varied on every job. However, in the answer the estimate is given that printing costs may vary from 35 per cent to 50 per cent less than the prices charged by commercial plants.
How was that percentage arrived at?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: We have not the same administrative costs as the ordinary commercial firm would have. There is no charge for rent, light or anything of that kind. That is paid for out of the government grant.


Douglas Scott Harkness: But that does not explain this figure of from 35 per cent to 50 per cent less than the price charged by commercial plants. All the minister has said is something everyone knows. We know they do not have to pay rent. What I want to know is how they arrived at this percentage of 35 per cent to 50 per cent less. It might as well have been 75 per cent or 10 per cent, from the answer the minister has given thus far.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: It is utterly impossible to give an answer other than the one I have given. If the hon. member does not choose to understand it, I cannot help that. I have told him that there are certain charges which of necessity must enter into the costs of private firms which are not charged in our accounts here. We pay nothing for rent, light or power. We pay nothing for capital investment. These things are paid for by the government grant. Consequently our costs are less.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister is stating generalities which everybody knows. He is wasting my time and the time of the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Scott Harkness: He is not answering the specific questions I have asked1.
I Mr. Bradley.]

It seems to me that in view of the answers he has been giving there is no use at this stage of the session to proceed further with the matter. I shall cease asking any more questions, but I shall come back next year in the hope that by that time the minister will have learned something about the printing bureau and may be able to answer a few specific questions in an intelligent manner.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I shall be glad to do that when the hon. member learns how to ask questions that can be answered.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to say just a few words. I could say more but I will not at this time. First of all, I want to say that I was pleased to note the expression of protest by the hon. member for Hamilton West when she learned how wage rates at the printing bureau tend to lag behind the going wage for printing in cities like Hamilton and Toronto, as well as in Ottawa and Montreal. I feel that the time is long overdue for a revision of that part of the Public Printing and Stationery Act which lays down the principle governing the wage rates at the printing bureau. I have not the act in front of me so I cannot quote it, but the gist of the appropriate section is that the wage rates paid at the bureau shall not be greater than the wage rates paid in Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal.
That leads the printers working at the bureau to feel that there is supposed to be some relationship between the two sets of wages referred to. Actually there is no need for the provision that the wage rates shall not be greater than they are in those, other cities because they are always less. The practice is to review them from time to time in the same way all prevailing rates are reviewed, namely, by reference to the Department of Labour, but there is always a time lag. The increase that is given to the printers at the bureau is always the increase won by the printers working in Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal six months or a year earlier, or sometimes a little less, even at that. I feel strongly that that part of the Public Printing and Stationery Act should be overhauled and it should be laid down as a principle that the wage rates at the bureau are to be on a par with the current wage rates in the three cities mentioned.
The usual tendency is to compare them with the wage rates paid in job shops in the three cities named in the act, but I feel, particularly when parliament is sitting, that the job of producing Hansard is more akin to work in a newspaper shop. I would point out that the scale of wages in a newspaper shop is always higher than in job shops.
There are two other things I want to say and I shall express myself as briefly as pos-

sible and serve notice on the Secretary of State that I will be back in future sessions with these points. Despite the plausible answer he gave a few weeks ago I feel that not only should the government permit employees in places like the printing bureau to belong to trade unions of their choice, but they should enter into collective bargaining with those employees through the trade unions of their choice.
I feel also that the government should pay more attention to the shops with which printing is placed to see that as much as possible, if not all of it, is placed with trade union shops. A short while ago I placed some questions on the order paper seeking information as to the volume of printing done at the bureau and the volume let out to other firms. Then with respect to printing let out to other firms I asked what percentage was given to union shops and what percentage to non-union shops. The answer that came back was that no information was available on that point.
Then I placed another set of questions asking for details as to the particular shops to which printing was let in each of the last three complete years and I asked which of those shops were entitled to use the trade union label of an allied printing trades council. While I got information as to the shops with which printing had been placed and the dollar value thereof, with regard to the union label question I was told that no information was available. I may tell the Secretary of State that I have taken steps to ascertain for him the total dollar value of this printing in the three years in question that was let to shops that could use the trade union label and the total dollar value let to shops not entitled to use the trade union label. Since the Secretary of State was not able to give me that information I shall give it to him either this fall or in the 1952 session, and I shall again press my point that government printing should be done in union shops.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, June 29, 1951
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable R. L. Kellock, a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the
House of Commons
Administrator, will proceed to the Senate chamber on Saturday, the 30th of June, at 1.00 p.m. for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
J. F. Delaute,
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we hope
to take up the remainder of the main estimates and the supplementaries. We would wish to proceed first with veterans affairs supplementary estimates, then labour, post office, finance and there are a few other departments which will be taken but I cannot indicate the order in which we will proceed.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


Gordon Francis Higgins: May I
inquire of the minister when I may expect the return I asked for about a week ago in connection with a wharf at Portugal Cove?


Alphonse Fournier: I have not yet received an answer
from the premier of Newfoundland.



FIRST REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE

Mr. Speaker:: May I be permitted to revert to presenting reports by standing and select committees. The select committee of the house appointed to consider with Mr. Speaker the procedure of this house for the purpose of suggesting any changes that may be desirable to assure the more expeditious dispatch of public business begs leave of the house to present its first report.
At its meeting today your committee gave consideration to a number of proposals advanced by its members respecting house procedure and hours of sitting. Your committee recommends:
(1)	That a select committee of the house be appointed as soon as possible after the opening of the next session of parliament with the same terms of reference;
(2)	that during the recess members of parliament send Mr. Speaker any suggestions they may wish to make.
On motion of Mr. Fournier (Hull) the house adjourned at 11.45 pjm.

Supply
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE

[Stage Direction]
Customs and excise divisions-
309.	General administration, $1,936,980.
310.	Inspection, investigation and audit services, $2,695,241.
Ports, outports and preventive stations-
311.	Operation and maintenance, $18,244,353.
312.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment (revote $60,000), $739,000.
313.	Customs excise seizure expenses and adjustments, $175,000.
Taxation division-
314.	General administration, $1,530,206.
315.	Internal inspection and verification, $1,016,386.
316.	District offices, $22,925,702.
Income tax appeal board-
317.	Administration expenses, $62,286.
Customs and excise divisions-
Ports, outports and preventive stations-
735. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-further amount required, $138,700.
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-
International shortwave broadcasting station-
53.	Maintenance and operation including authority to credit to the appropriation revenue from rental of facilities in Radio Canada building to an amount of $100,000 and to re-expend it for the purposes of the international service, $1,709,675.
54.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, including supervision, $218,925.
Loans, investments and advances-
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-
564. Loans to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation repayable with interest at a rate to be fixed by the governor in council on such terms and conditions as the governor in council may determine and to be applied in payment of expenditures to cover capital costs of television installations and to support the development of the service. Such loans, with interest shall be a charge on the revenues of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation next after the charge imposed under the provisions of section 17 of the Canadian Broadcasting Act, 1936, $1,500,000. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-
670.	To provide for an interim grant to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation pending amendment of the Canadian Broadcasting Act, $1,500,000. International shortwave broadcasting station-
671.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, including supervision (revote)-further amount required, $235,678.

[Stage Direction]
A-Department and missions abroad-
84. Departmental administration, $2,272,597.
A-Department and missions abroad-
682.	Representation abroad-operational-including payment of salaries of high commissioners, ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, consuls, secretaries and staff appointed as directed by the governor general in council, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act or any of its amendments-further amount required, $110,000.
683.	To provide for official hospitality-further amount required by reason of the visit of the President of France, $20,000.
B-General-
The Canadian government's assessment for membership in international or commonwealth organizations-
684.	Further amount required to supplement votes 95-98 inclusive, and 100-105 inclusive, in the main estimates to meet fluctuations in exchange, $40,000.
685.	Contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty organization to meet the Canadian government's share of the cost of civil administration, $320,000. Terminable services-
686.	Contribution to the United Nations international children's emergency fund, $500,000.
687.	To provide for and authorize grants or loans to governments of countries in south and southeast Asia to assist in the economic development of such countries, and special administrative expenses in connection therewith, $25,000,000.
688.	To provide for the purchase and transportation to Yugoslavia of relief supplies, $45,000.
[Stage Direction]
154.	To provide for the destruction of harbour and gray seals, $30,000.
Fisheries research boards-
155.	Headquarters administration, $89,814.
Fisheries research board-
156.	Operation and maintenance, $1,494,498.
157.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $222,560.
International commissions-
158.	To provide for Canadian share of expenses of the international fisheries commission appointed under treaty dated January 29, 1937, between Canada and the United States for the preservation of the North Pacific halibut fisheries, $50,000.
159.	To provide for Canadian share of expenses of the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission appointed under treaty dated May 26, 1930, between Canada and the United States for the protection, preservation and extension of the sockeye salmon fisheries of the Fraser river system, $166,350.
160.	To provide for Canadian share of expenses of the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission to overcome obstructions to the ascent of sock-eye salmon at Hell's Gate canyon and for investigating and overcoming obstructions to such salmon at other points on the Fraser river watershed (revote), $32,000.
161.	To provide for Canadian share of expenses of the international whaling commission, appointed pursuant to the international convention for the regulation of whaling, dated at Washington, December 2, 1946, $3,000.
162.	To provide for Canadian share of expenses of the international commission for the northwest Atlantic fisheries appointed pursuant to international conventions for the investigation, protection and conservation of the fisheries of the northwest Atlantic ocean, dated at Washington, February 8, 1949, $2,500.
Special-
163.	To provide for operation and maintenance of Newfoundland bait service, $392,444.
164.	To provide for the extension of educational work in co-operative producing and selling among fishermen, $80,000.
165.	To provide for administration expenses of the Fisheries Prices Support Act, 1944, $81,042.

Supply
166.	To provide for assistance in the construction of vessels of the dragger and/or long liner type, subject to such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council, $100,000.
167.	To provide for assistance in the construction of bait freezing and storage facilities, subject to the approval of the governor in council, $30,000.
General services-
691. Industrial development	service-further amount required, $15,000.
692.	To provide for transportation, dressing and dyeing and other expenses incidental to receiving and disposing of fur seal skins accruing to Canada pursuant to provisional fur seal agreement between Canada and the United States by exchange of notes dated December 26, 1947-further amount required, $300,000.
Field services-
Protection branch-
693.	Operation and maintenance-further amount required, $165,605.
694. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-further amount required, $105,125.
Fisheries research board-
695. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-further amount required, $147,000.
International commissions-
696.	To provide for Canadian share of expenses of the international commission for the northwest Atlantic fisheries appointed pursuant to international conventions for the investigation, protection, and conservation of the fisheries of the northwest Atlantic ocean, dated at Washington, February 8, 1949-further amount required, $15,000.
Special-
697.	To provide for administration expenses of the Fisheries Prices Support Act, 1944-further amount required, $7,300.
698.	To provide for assistance in the construction of vessels of the dragger and/or long liner type, subject to such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council-further amount required, $50,000.
699.	Amount required to recoup fisheries prices support account, to cover the net operating loss of the fisheries prices support board during the fiscal year 1950-51, $88,641.
700.	To provide for acquisition of lands required by the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission, as required by article VIII of treaty dated May 26, 1930, between Canada and the United States for the protection, preservation and extension of the sockeye salmon fisheries of the Fraser river system, $200.
[Stage Direction]
451.	Trade commissioner service, including payment of compensation to trade commissioners for damage to and loss of furniture and effects, under regulations approved by the governor in council, $1,963,751.
452.	Information division, including publicity and advertising in Canada and abroad, $165,697.
453.	Economic research and forecasting divisions, including conducting of investigations and reporting upon current economic conditions and outlook, $193,824.
454.	International trade relations division, including investigating and reporting on commercial relations and foreign tariffs and a contribution of $6,300 to the international customs tariffs bureau, $151,889.
Exhibitions-
455.	Exhibitions generally, $257,122.
456.	Canadian International Trade Fair, 1951, including authority to refund from revenue deposits received for contracts for space (revote, $85,000), $606,053.
Standards division-
457.	Administration, including administration of the Precious Metals Marking Act, $110,923.
458.	Electricity and gas inspection services, including administration of the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act-operation and maintenance, $565,429.
459. Laboratory-operation	and maintenance, $72,121.
460.	Weights and measures inspection services- operation and maintenance, $637,985.
Dominion bureau of statistics-
461.	Administration, $146,755.
462.	Statistics, including contribution of $3,000 to the Inter-American Statistical Institute, $3,828,828.
463.	Census of population and agriculture and the 1951 census of distribution, $7,015,851.
Wheat and grain division-
464.	Salaries and other expenses, $27,488.
465.	To provide for the Canadian government's annual assessment for membership in the international wheat cbuncil, $25,000.
Canada Grain Act-
466.	Administration, $129,399.
467.	Board of grain commissioners-operating and maintenance expenses including inspection, weighing, registration, etc., $2,613,807.
Canadian government elevators-
468.	Operation and maintenance expenses (revote, $100,760), $625,467.
469.	Construction of safety devices, and acquisition of new equipment (revote, $64,368), $64,368.
Special-
470.	To provide for payments by the government of Canada under agreement dated July 10, 1950, between the government of Canada and the government of Manitoba, establishing the greater Winnipeg diking board, $1,275,000.
General administration-
786.	Departmental administration including authority for an additional deputy minister for the Department of Trade and Commerce, to be appointed by the governor in council, to be called the associate deputy Minister of Trade and Commerce; to hold office during pleasure and to have and exercise under the Deputy Minister of Trade and Commerce such powers, duties and functions of the Minister of Trade and Commerce as may be specified by such minister, at a salary of $12,000, per annum; order in council P.C. 1481 of March 22, 1951, appointing Mitchell W. Sharp as such associate deputy minister on the terms therein set forth, is ratified-further amount required, $40,800.
787.	Trade commissioner service, including payment of compensation to trade commissioners for damage to and loss of furniture and effects, under regulations approved by the governor in council- further amount required, $98,700.
Exhibitions-
788. Exhibitions	generally-further	amount
required, $55,000.
789.	Canadian international trade fair, 1952-to provide for preparatory expenses of a Canadian international trade fair in 1952, the remaining amount required to be provided in the main estimates for 1952-53, $312,020.
[Stage Direction]
Supply
Standards division-
790.	Weights and measures inspection servicesoperation and	maintenance-further	amount
required, $10,600.
Dominion bureau of statistics-
791.	Census of population and agriculture and the
1951 census of	distribution-further	amount
required, $261,000.
Canada Grain Act-
792.	Canadian government elevators-operation and maintenance-further amount required, $80,000. Special-[DOT]
793.	To provide for payments by the government of Canada under agreement dated July 10, 1950, between the government of Canada and the government of Manitoba, establishing the greater Winnipeg diking board (revote)-further amount required, $430,793.
[Stage Direction]
Department-
680.	Departmental administration and payments to Canadian Commercial Corporation and other corporate agencies for services provided in connection with defence purchasing and production- further amount required, $1,000,000.
681.	To provide capital assistance for the construction, acquisition, extension or improvement of capital equipment or works by private contractors engaged in defence contracts, or by crown plants operated on a management-fee basis, or by crown companies under direction of the Minister of Defence Production, subject to approval of treasury board-further amount required $50,000,000.
825. To authorize a further amount of $50,000,000 for the purpose of increasing from $100,000,000 to $150,000,000 the amount by which expenditures charged to the defence production revolving fund may in the current and subsequent fiscal years exceed receipts shown therein, as provided for in section 16 of the Defence Production Act, $50,000,000. National research council-
302.	Salaries and other expenses, $10,679,821.
303. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment (revote $739,000), $3,481,675.
Atomic energy control board-
304.	Administration expenses of the atomic energy control board, $62,108.
305.	Researches and investigations with respect to atomic energy, $200,000.
Atomic energy project-
306.	Operation and maintenance, $6,624,747.
307. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment (revote $600,000), 11,625,885.
308.	Construction of a new reactor, $7,000,000.
[Stage Direction]
Privy council oifice-
322.	General administration, $205,586.
Privy council office-
739.	General administration-further amount required, $75,000.
Prime Minister's office-
323.	Salaries of staff, $123,949.
Prime Minister's residence-
324.	Maintenance and operation, $25,000.
Federal district commission-
325.	Maintenance and improvement of grounds adjoining government buildings, Ottawa, and improvements to the parkway system under the control of the federal district commission, $421,400.
326.	Expenses of the national capital planning committee, $45,000.
327.	To authorize payment of the fourth instalment to a special account in the consolidated revenue fund, known as the national capital fund, established under vote No. 809, Appropriation Act, No. 4, 1947-48, $2,500,000.
[Stage Direction]
168.	Office of the secretary to the governor general, including the salary of the secretary to the governor general at $7,600 additional to salary authorized by chap. 182, R.S.C., 1927, $114,597.
[Stage Direction]
439 Departmental administration, $196,501.
440. Companies branch, $82,371.
441 Trade mark branch, including a contribution of $2,400 to the international office for the protection of industrial property, $85,517.
442.	Bureau for translations, $816,683.
443.	Canada Temperance Act, $1,000.
Patent and copyright office-
444.	Administration division, $48,452.
445.	Patent division, $729,899.
446.	Copyright and industrial designs division, including a contribution of $2,100 to the union office for the protection of literary and artistic works, $20,828.
447.	Patent record division, $72,474.
General-
448 Bibliographic centre (national library), $48,221. Public archives-
328.	General administration and technical services, $263,473.
Civil service commission-
75. Salaries and contingencies of the commission, including the chairman of the civil service commission and two civil service commissioners at $2,000 each, additional to chapter 53, statutes of 1947 and to provide for continuance in office of C. If. Bland as chairman of the civil service commission from September 6, 1951, to March 31, 1953, the date of expiry of the term of ten years for which he was last appointed, $1,664,586.
Civil service commission-[DOT]
679. Salaries and contingencies of the commission-further amount required, $10,000.
Public Printing and Stationery-
329.	Departmental administration, $72,604.
330.	Printing and binding the annual statutes, $30,000.
331.	Canada Gazette, $130,000.
332.	Plant equipment and replacements, $257,265.
333.	Distribution of official documents, $118,186.
334.	Printing and binding official publications for sale and distribution to departments and the public, $230,000.
Public printing and stationery-
740.	Printing and binding the annual statutes- further amount required, $10,000.
741.	Plant equipment and replacements-further amount required, $138,650.
742.	Distribution of official documents-further amount required, $10,000.
743.	Printing and binding official publications for sale and distribution to departments and the public -further amount required, $200,000.
[Stage Direction]
Saturday, June 30, 1951